code_review_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it 'reviews a diff as if for a pull request' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, if it requires authentication, or what happens if both diff and diff_file are provided (schema allows both as optional). Missing behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, straight to the point, with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second gives parameter guidance.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description partially covers parameter semantics but omits one parameter ('think'). It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. Still, the omission and lack of constraints leave it somewhat 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. It explains 'diff' as inline diff text, 'diff_file' as a server-side path, and 'context' as PR description. However, it fails to explain the 'think' parameter, leaving that undocumented.

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 'Review a git diff... as if for a pull request.' This is a specific verb (review) and resource (git diff), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'explain_code' or 'review_code' by focusing specifically on diffs.

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 explicitly says 'Provide exactly one of diff or diff_file' and explains the role of 'context'. It provides clear guidance on parameter usage, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.

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