mdr_review

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: returns immediately (never blocks), requires subsequent mdr_wait, warns about leaving a banner and invisible feedback, explains comment anchoring and fallback for Mermaid diagrams, and instructs to include author.

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?

First sentence states purpose. The description is logically structured in paragraphs covering purpose, flow, and comments. Could be slightly more concise, but holds necessary detail.

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 complexity of the two-tool flow, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description thoroughly covers when and how to use, the blocking mechanism, and important behavioral details like anchor matching and author requirement.

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 25% (low). Description adds context for main parameters (filePaths, comments, replies, author) but does not systematically detail each property. The workflow explanation compensates somewhat, but parameter semantics remain partially inferred.

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?

Clearly states 'Review markdown files in md-redline (mdr) and leave inline feedback.' Distinguishes from sibling tools mdr_ask, mdr_request_review, mdr_wait by explaining its role in the two-tool flow.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks you to review a doc and drop comments.' Describes the necessary two-tool flow with mdr_wait and warns about skipping it. Does not explicitly exclude other uses but provides clear context.

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