Prepare code review

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

Discloses that files stay local and selection criteria, but no annotations are present. Lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or whether any modifications occur. Basic transparency but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, selection logic, and workflow. Front-loaded with action. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall well-structured.

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?

Explains the tool's role in upgrading dimensions from inferred to verified, but lacks detail on the output format (file contents and checklist). No output schema, so description should compensate. Adequate but not complete.

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 100% with descriptions for path and max_files. The description does not add extra semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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?

Clearly states it selects highest-signal files (security-relevant, entry points, large files) and returns their contents with a review checklist. Distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_project and score_build_readiness by its specific role in the pipeline.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to gather files for review, then the model produces an assessment passed to score_build_readiness. Implies when-not by describing the workflow, though no explicit exclusions.

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