mdr_add_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the tool returns immediately, that the sessionId remains the same, that the reviewer's tab opens the new files, and that ended sessions cannot accept more files. These behavioral details go beyond a simple 'add' statement.

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 five sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core operation, then gives usage triggers, compatibility, behavior, and limitations in a logical, efficient progression.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what side effects occur, and what the agent should do when the session has ended. No critical information is missing.

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 both sessionId and filePaths. The description adds only mild reinforcement ('same sessionId as before') but no substantive new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Add markdown files to a review session') and specifies the resource and constraint ('already open in mdr... without starting a new one'). It also distinguishes itself by noting compatibility with sessions from mdr_request_review and mdr_comment, so an agent can tell it apart from its siblings.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'when the reviewer asks for another file mid-review' and 'when you need to comment on a file the session does not cover yet.' It also provides an exclusion and alternative: 'A session that has ended cannot take more files: start a new review instead.'

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