Get a parsed review packet

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

The description adds 'Read-only' and 'the verdict is the human`s' beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). It reinforces the read-only nature and provides context about the human role, aligning with annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise, using one sentence and a parenthetical to convey the tool's purpose and key behavior. Every word adds value, making it easy for an AI agent to parse.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (status, coverage rows, verify blocks) and its read-only nature. No further details are necessary for this simple get 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?

The single parameter 'task' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 retrieves a review packet's status, coverage rows, and verify blocks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying these components, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 notes 'Read-only; the verdict is the human`s,' implying the tool should be used for reading without modification. It provides context but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, though siblings like swarm_reconcile_review serve different purposes.

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