nim_review_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the backing models, which is a hint about behavior, but says nothing about cost, latency, permissions, or what the audit returns (findings list, severity, free text). For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the density means nothing is elaborated where elaboration would help.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should at minimum indicate what an audit produces and any input constraints. It leaves the return shape and the meaning of the 'focus' choices entirely unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the model aliases and defaults. The description adds the human-readable model names, but they are also in the schema, so this is baseline 3 with no real added 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('audits source code or git diffs') and names the specialist models used, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like nim_query_model or nim_deep_reason. It does not address the near-duplicate Portuguese sibling nim_revisar_codigo, but otherwise the purpose is 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over nim_deep_reason or nim_revisar_codigo, nor any prerequisites (repo access, size limits, diff format). The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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