review_change

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results come back as one consolidated report, but says nothing about cost, depth of analysis, or what 'rule violations' and 'conventions' are measured against.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args list is compact with no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which costs nothing in structure terms.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and a report-producing behavior, the definition leaves open what the report contains, whether findings are per-file or aggregated, and what max_tokens bounds. Annotations cover safety, but the operational picture is only partially filled in.

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 25%, so the description must compensate; it does for files (default = git changed files) and mode (quick = security only, full), which the schema leaves bare. It is silent on max_tokens (what it bounds — report size or analysis effort) and workspace, so half the parameters remain 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Review changed files') and enumerates the three dimensions checked (security, rule violations, conventions) plus the single-report output. An agent can distinguish it from suggest_tests or impact_analysis, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 Args block implies usage context: files default to git-reported changes and mode selects security-only vs full review. However, it never says when to pick this over sibling tools like suggest_tests or relevant_context, nor when 'quick' is preferable beyond the parenthetical.

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