review_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape: a verdict (safe / block) plus findings with line numbers and a parameterized fix. That is meaningful beyond structured data since no output schema exists. It does not state that this is static analysis without execution, whether it reads any files from disk, or any size/rate limits.

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 short sentences, zero filler: the check is front-loaded, then the return contract. Nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, supported languages, and return shape adequately. The remaining gap is scope transparency — what the `code` input should contain and the limits of the static analysis.

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%, so the single required `code` parameter is undocumented in the schema; the description only indirectly informs it by listing supported languages. It adds no guidance on whether the value is a full file, a snippet, or whether multiple files can be concatenated.

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 names a specific verb (check/review), a specific resource (application source code, with the languages enumerated), and the exact defect class it looks for (SQL built by string interpolation or concatenation). The 'application source code' framing also implicitly separates it from review_query and review_migration, which operate on SQL artifacts rather than host-language code.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus review_query, review_migration, or preflight_checks, and no when-not guidance. It also doesn't say whether to pass an entire file, a snippet, or a multi-file selection, which is the main usage decision an agent faces.

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