get_review_sections_for_diff

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the return type ('quality sections') and filtering aspect ('relevant to changed file types'), but fails to mention side effects, permission requirements, output structure, or behavior with invalid input (e.g., empty changedExtensions). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime characteristics.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front- loads the main action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too short to provide complete guidance. An agent would likely need additional information about the 'quality sections' concept, expected input formats, and return structure to use 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 schema provides a description for 'changedExtensions' (an example) but not for 'workspaceRoot'. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, leaving the purpose of 'workspaceRoot' unclear and failing to compensate for the 50% schema coverage. The description implies 'changed file types' maps to 'changedExtensions', but this is basic inference.

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 returns 'quality sections relevant to changed file types', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_quality_domains' or 'get_quality_guide', though 'quality sections' is undefined. Overall, the purpose is clear but could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'quality section'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_quality_guide' or 'scan_violations'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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