review_file

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

The description reveals that the tool reuses the review pipeline and synthesizes the file as a unified diff, which explains its behavior. However, with no annotations, additional traits like read-only nature or permission requirements are not disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and mechanism without extraneous words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description lacks details on prerequisites, error conditions, or usage context beyond being a fallback.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the parameters (repo_path, file_path, head_ref), leaving the agent without guidance beyond the schema's titles.

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 it performs a whole-file review as a fallback, distinguishing itself from the sibling tool review_diff by specifying it synthesizes the entire file as an all-added unified diff.

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 as a fallback when review_diff is not applicable, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives.

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