ruvltra_code_review

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the scope of the review, which is useful, and the English-context note hints at how output quality is influenced. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, how results are returned, or any side effects, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is just two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no filler. The second sentence about English context is concise and relevant to output quality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: optional parameters are undocumented, no guidance distinguishes this from sibling review-like tools, and behavioral notes are minimal. The output schema covers return values, which helps, but the missing parameter and routing context makes the description incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the four parameters. It does not: 'code' is obvious from the schema, but focus, language, and timeoutMs are never described, and the 'provide instructions and context in English' advice does not map clearly to any parameter. An agent cannot determine valid values or meaning for the optional parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the verb and resource: it reviews code, and it names five concrete review dimensions (bugs, security, performance, correctness, maintainability). However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling review-like tools such as ruvltra_swarm_review, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for code review and advises providing English instructions/context for best output quality. It never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings like ruvltra_code_test, ruvltra_code_fix, or ruvltra_swarm_review, so selection guidance remains implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.