review_verdict

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

With no annotations, the description adds constraints: verdict must be 'pass' or 'fail', and reason is a one-line justification. However, it does not disclose behavior on duplicate calls, error handling, or permissions, leaving gaps.

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 very concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose, then usage order, then parameter constraints. Every sentence is necessary and no words are wasted.

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's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and key parameter constraints. It lacks details on return values and duplicate calls but is largely sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description must explain parameters. It only partially explains 'verdict' (valid values) and 'reason' (one-line justification), but does not describe 'task_id' or 'criterion_index', leaving half of the required parameters unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as recording a pass/fail verdict for a single acceptance criterion, distinguishing it from sibling tools like review_decide by specifying that it should be called before that tool.

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 states to call this once per criterion and before review_decide, providing clear ordering guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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