Review the agent for common mistakes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state that a score, findings with fixes, and optional Markdown are returned, which is useful. But it is silent on whether the review is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether it mutates the workspace (e.g., writes a report), and what the reportPath side effect is – a real gap for a tool that produces output artifacts.

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 long sentence with a dense checklist of topics, which front-loads purpose reasonably. However, the laundry list of review dimensions reads as a data dump and could be structured more cleanly; it is adequate but not efficiently organized.

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?

For a review tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does state the return shape (score, findings, fixes, optional Markdown). Yet it omits the safety profile, the workspace default behavior, and the reportPath side effect, leaving the agent to guess about key invocation details.

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 67%, with workspace and reportPath documented in the schema and markdown undocumented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered boolean. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 specifies a clear verb (judge/review) and resource (the agent), and enumerates the categories of issues it checks (instructions, escalation, trigger overlap, tool collisions, credentials, etc.). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cs_validate or cs_check_solution, which target different artifacts. It loses the top mark only because 'agent' scope and the workspace target are implied rather than stated outright.

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 implies when to use it by listing what it inspects, so an agent can infer this is for auditing an existing agent workspace. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the closest alternative, cs_validate or cs_generate_instructions, so routing is left to inference.

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