review_pr_diff

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

No annotations are provided. The description says 'orchestration' but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, modifies state, or has side effects. With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to provide any behavioral insight.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it is vague and does not earn its place fully. It could be restructured to include key information without being longer.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, behavior, or usage steps. The agent would struggle to use this 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 two parameters (changedFiles, workspaceRoot) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond their names. It does not clarify expected format, purpose, or 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?

Description states 'PR review orchestration: changed files, extensions, and review steps.' It is somewhat specific about the components but vague on what the tool actually does or returns. Sibling tools like 'get_pr_review_brief' and 'get_review_sections_for_diff' suggest a range of PR review actions, and this description does not sufficiently distinguish them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or context. It leaves the agent to infer usage.

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