firepass_reviewer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, autonomous iteration, and structured review output. It mentions the default max_iterations (60) and that no writes or shell commands occur, which is transparent for a review tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-liner, a paragraph on capabilities, and a bullet list of args. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose 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 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description thoroughly covers all aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and return format (blocking issues, suggestions, praise). It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed explanations for each parameter: prompt (what to review), cwd (sandbox directory), context (optional pre-loaded content), and max_iterations (tool-call rounds). This adds significant meaning that the schema lacks.

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 it runs a code review with FirePass reviewer and specifies the model and read-only tool loop. It explicitly lists what it returns (blocking issues, suggestions, and what's done well), distinguishing it from a vague tool.

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 explains what the tool can do (read files, search, iterate autonomously) and what it cannot do (no file writes or shell commands). This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like firepass_researcher or firepass_worker.

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