system_one_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the non-mutating and idempotent nature. The description adds specificity by stating it does not execute tests or apply patches, which is a more detailed behavioral constraint than the generic read-only hint. It also aligns with the annotations without contradiction, reinforcing the safety profile.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a critical exclusion (does not execute tests or apply patches) that clarifies scope. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 being concise, the description is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter explanations. It lists review criteria but does not explain how they are scored, what the output format is, or how optional parameters like review_at, auto_accept, and composite_floor influence behavior. An agent would lack sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly beyond the simplest case.

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%, meaning none of the 7 parameters are described in the schema itself. The description mentions 'diff' implicitly by saying 'proposed diff', but it does not explain the meaning, purpose, or constraints of any parameter (request, tests, context, review_at, auto_accept, composite_floor). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving agents guessing about parameter semantics.

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 the tool's action: 'Score a proposed diff' and specifies the criteria (correctness, spec match, test gap, blast radius, safety). It also explicitly notes what it does not do ('Does not execute tests or apply patches'), which helps distinguish it from potential execution-oriented tools. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives a hint about when to use this tool by stating it does not execute tests or apply patches, implying it is for static review only. However, it does not name specific sibling tools or provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like system_one_verify or system_one_gate. The usage context is only implied, not fully articulated.

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