review_pr

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it uses diff-only mode, supports multiple output formats, and enables severity gating. However, it does not mention required permissions (e.g., write access to post comments) or whether it modifies any state. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise: two sentences that cover the essential aspects without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (purpose and key features) is front-loaded.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core functionality: diff-only scanning, output formats, and severity gating. It omits the structure of the returned findings, which would be helpful for an agent, but the description still provides sufficient context for invoking the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description reiterates high-level concepts like 'diff-only mode' and output formats but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Thus, it provides marginal additional value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reviewing a pull request for security issues. It specifies the diff-only mode, output formats, and severity gating, which are distinguishing features. This differentiates it from siblings like 'scan_changed_files' which may not have the same output integration.

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 explicitly says 'Review a pull request for security issues,' which provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios, such as full scans of the repository. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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