review_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the snapshot-consistency trait, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about freshness, latency, permissions failure modes, or result shape.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the verb and the read scope. It is not bloated, though the enumerated nouns are slightly clipped and could be grouped more clearly.

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?

There is no output schema and the nested basis/intent objects are undocumented, so the agent cannot predict what a snapshot contains or what form those filters take. The description is adequate for a simple read but leaves meaningful gaps given the tool's nested parameters.

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%, so nothing documents proposal_id, idempotency_key, or the nested basis and intent objects. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions any parameter — but the parameter count is small and only proposal_id is required, keeping this at the baseline.

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 a specific verb (read) and resource set (candidate diff, evidence, evaluations, work, review permissions) plus a consistency guarantee ('consistent snapshot'). That distinguishes it from siblings like get_evidence_view or related_review_context, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With close siblings such as related_review_context, context, and get_change_review, the agent must infer the choice purely from the one-line purpose statement.

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