code.review

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

Without any annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The phrase 'structured heuristic code review' is too vague for an agent to infer expected behavior.

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 at one sentence, but this brevity comes at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, yet lacks supporting information that would justify its length.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the review process, output format, or limitations. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably use this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter meanings. The three parameters (path, maxFiles, maxFindings) are left completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and constraints.

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 performs a 'structured heuristic code review' over a 'file or directory', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like code.patch and validate.check, which have different purposes.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool might be inappropriate.

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