review_code

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does so clearly: never writes files, returns only a text report, and performs a ruthless review. It also lists specific vulnerability categories checked (SQLi, XSS, privilege escalation) and performance issues (N+1, memory leaks).

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read-only code critic'). Every phrase adds value — no filler. The first sentence establishes scope, the second disclaims side effects and clarifies output format.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fairly covers the inputs, behavior, and output. An agent should be able to invoke it correctly. A minor gap: the description doesn't mention the output format structure (e.g., bullet points vs. paragraphs), but this is acceptable for a complex, free-text report.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the purpose of the two parameters implicitly: 'code snippet' and 'its stated intent' map directly to code_snippet and intent. It does not detail their types or constraints, but the schema already provides min/max lengths and types.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Analyzes the provided code snippet') and immediately states it is read-only. It lists specific review categories (missing requirements, security vulnerabilities, edge cases, performance issues), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is 'Read-only' and 'Never writes files', which guides when to use it (analysis without side effects). However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though sibling tools are absent, so there is no need for exclusion.

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