Reviews code or diffs for bugs, security, performance, and architecture concerns via NVIDIA NIM models; backward-compatible alias for older integrations.
Alias para nim_review_code (compatibilidade com versões anteriores)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| foco | No | ||
| modelo | No | ||
| linguagem | No | ||
| codigo_ou_diff | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about what the tool actually returns, whether it is read-only, cost/latency implications, or model selection behavior. Only the deprecation-compat status is disclosed.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the alias relationship and the compat rationale. Nothing wasted, though it is arguably too terse for the information it needs to carry.
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 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no statement of actual function or behavior, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer. Alias-status alone is not enough for correct invocation.
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% across four parameters (including an enum foco and free-text modelo/linguagem), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It relies entirely on the agent inferring parameters from the target tool.
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 identifies the tool as an alias for nim_review_code, which points the agent toward the real function, but it never states the actual verb+resource (reviewing code/diffs). An agent that doesn't already know nim_review_code learns nothing about what this 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?
Naming the canonical sibling plus 'compatibilidade com versões anteriores' effectively tells the agent to prefer nim_review_code for new work and to use this only for legacy callers. No explicit exclusion is spelled out, but the routing intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.