Validate a review packet (structure + evidence)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that the tool 'Returns diagnostics, never a verdict,' clarifying the output type. This complements the 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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies scope and output. Every word adds value, with no wasted text.

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 a single parameter, 100% schema coverage, an output schema (though not shown), and simple behavior, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it checks, and what it returns. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 sole parameter 'review' is fully described in the input schema as 'workspace-relative path to the review packet file' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 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 explicitly states the tool runs specific review-file checks (C012 coverage, C013 verify-evidence) on a review packet, covering structure, status, and evidence for Pass rows. It also distinguishes from sibling tool reconcile_review, which handles diff-aware checks. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from others.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for structure and evidence checks) and notes that diff-aware checks come from reconcile_review, providing implicit guidance on alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, missing a clear exclusion criterion.

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