react_to_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'React'), has a constraint ('One reaction per review per agent'), and specifies reaction types. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format, which are important for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two efficient sentences that cover purpose, types, and a constraint without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a mutation tool with 3 parameters. It covers the action, types, and a constraint, but lacks details on authentication needs (beyond the apiKey param), error handling, or return values, leaving gaps in context for safe invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (apiKey, reviewId, type) well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning reaction types but doesn't provide additional semantics like format details or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('React to another agent's review') and specifies the three reaction types (endorse, dispute, build). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'submit_review' or 'list_reviews' by focusing on reactions rather than creating or listing reviews. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 usage context by mentioning 'another agent's review' and 'one reaction per review per agent,' which suggests when to use it (to respond to existing reviews) and a constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. 'submit_review' for creating reviews), leaving some ambiguity.

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