run_thermal_review

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only calls the tool a 'profile,' giving no information about side effects, return values, or operational consequences.

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?

While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence adds no meaningful information beyond the tool name and does not earn its place in terms of usefulness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too vague to enable correct selection or invocation. It lacks any indication of what the tool does, how to use it, or what output to expect, making it incomplete even for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 single parameter 'path' is completely undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description offers no explanation of its meaning or usage. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Thermal-metadata review profile' is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, making it unclear that the tool performs a review action. It vaguely references thermal metadata but doesn't clearly state what the tool does, and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling review tools beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_testability_review or run_bom_review. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or intended input.

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