Review State Bag usage

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 known. The description adds the 'static heuristic' nature, indicating analysis without execution, and lists the specific risk categories it checks. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail the output format.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and the three review focus areas without unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are presumably documented there. The description clearly scopes the review to three risk areas and implies a code context via the language parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention that the code should be for a specific platform or that input code must be provided, though these are inferable from the sibling tools and schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameters 'code' or 'language' at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to explain that 'code' is the source code to review and 'language' selects the language-specific parser. This is a notable gap given 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 states a specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('State Bag usage') with three concrete focus areas: nested State Bag serialization, scope-event scaling, and client replication risks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_resource_structure or audit_nui_compatibility, which target broader or different concerns.

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 implies usage for code review related to State Bags, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The focus on State Bag risks provides clear context, but there is no direct guidance on selecting it among sibling review tools.

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