review_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, requires permissions, or has side effects. The description is silent on behavior beyond the basic action.

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise. However, it sacrifices essential information for brevity, leaving most questions unanswered. It is not front-loaded with the most critical details.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain parameters, return values, or usage context. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 0%. The tool description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. It does not explain what 'files', 'panel', 'effort', etc., represent or how they affect the review.

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 it reviews code implementations, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it explicitly states equivalence to review_document, creating confusion about why this separate tool exists. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like review_document or review_plan.

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 only says to use for code review, but no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It mentions equivalence to review_document but does not clarify when to choose this over review_document.

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