submit_diff_review

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: the diff is forwarded to the provider and never appears in LLM output tokens, the base auto-detection algorithm, sensitive path refusal, and session management details. This adds value beyond what annotations would typically cover, but could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., job creation).

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 well-structured with clear sections, but is verbose (multiple paragraphs). While it covers necessary details, some sentences are dense and could be condensed. It earns its place given the complexity, but lacks the brevity of top-tier descriptions.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers core behavior, parameter options, and constraints (sensitive paths). However, it omits the return value structure and next steps (e.g., how to retrieve results), leaving the agent with incomplete context for full workflow understanding.

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?

The description adds significant meaning for base, prompt, repo_path, capability, session_id, and allow_outside_cwd, often beyond the schema. However, 4 parameters (provider_npub, kind_offset, timeout_secs, max_price_lamports) lack schema descriptions and are not explained in the description, leaving gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to moderate schema coverage (60%) and partial compensation.

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 tool's action: 'Send a code-review job: the MCP server runs git diff inside repo_path and forwards the diff to the chosen provider.' It specifies the verb ('send'), the resource ('code-review job'), and the mechanism, distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_job or submit_and_pay_job which do not involve local git operations.

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 provides detailed guidance on when to use parameters: auto-detection logic for base, explicit override for PR-style ranges, prepending a prompt, and overriding the capability tag. It explains session management with clear options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of other job-related tools, nor does it mention excluded scenarios.

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