build_review_packet

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any constraints. The agent cannot assess whether invoking this tool is safe or appropriate.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It front-loads the core action but misses crucial details, making it minimally useful.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no parameter descriptions, an output schema (unseen), and a large sibling set, the single-sentence description is far from complete. It fails to address parameter usage, output expectations, or when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter meaning, defaults, or usage. Parameters like 'targets', 'intensity', and 'max_images' are left entirely unexplained.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Build one host-facing first-preview handoff') and the scope ('for one image or an image directory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'render_preview' or 'plan_preview_review' by focusing on the handoff context, though the term 'handoff' may be slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., 'render_preview', 'plan_preview_review'). An agent would have no basis to choose this over alternatives without additional context.

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