review_frontend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that analysis is static-heuristic only and therefore requires context/data-sanitization verification, which tells the agent results are provisional. However, it says nothing about read-only/side-effect behavior, permissions, or what the review actually inspects.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler. The trailing 'verify context and data sanitization' is slightly terse to the point of ambiguity, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters: the agent is left guessing at path resolution, paging behavior, and the shape of the review output. For a 3-parameter tool with no structured support, the description does not fill enough of the gap.

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% for three parameters (path, limit, offset), so the description must compensate and does not. It is silent on how path resolves against 'discovered' source and on the pagination semantics of limit/offset.

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?

States a specific verb (review) and resource (discovered frontend source) plus the risk scope (UI behavior and rendering risks). 'Frontend' implicitly separates it from review_backend, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with any sibling such as review_security or analyze_code.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over review_backend, review_security, analyze_code, or scan_project, and no prerequisites. 'Static heuristics only' hints at a limitation but does not tell the agent which situations warrant this review versus an alternative.

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