aplomo_review_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (reviews the diff) but omits key details: what the output looks like, whether it is read-only, any side effects, or how results are presented. This is a significant gap for a review tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. It does not specify what the agent should expect as a result (e.g., a report, a list of issues, a pass/fail status), nor does it mention prerequisites like a staged or committed diff. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to use the tool's output.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb 'review' and resource 'current git diff' with specific focus areas (risky size, secrets, missing test changes). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like aplomo_review_plan or aplomo_review_architecture, which focus on different artifacts.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no mention of workflow context, such as 'run before committing' or 'use instead of aplomo_review_plan for diff analysis'. The description implies a use case but does not explicitly address selection.

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