veto_full_review

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: runs parallel scans and returns a combined verdict. No contradictions. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the parallel execution and verdict output.

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 well-structured sentences: first sentence defines the tool's action and output, second sentence provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (combined verdict of pass/warn/fail). All parameters are optional and well-described in schema. The tool's purpose and behavior are fully covered for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description provides no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already documents, so baseline 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 clearly states it runs multiple scans (code review, security, secrets, quality) in parallel and returns a combined verdict. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling veto_diff_review by promising 'richer output'.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool 'before any merge or deploy' and when wanting richer output than veto_diff_review alone, providing clear when-to-use and implied when-not-to-use.

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