review_diff

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 that no git invocation is performed, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output (review comments) looks like.

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?

Two sentences convey the core purpose and key usage note without any unnecessary words. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits important details such as expected output format, error conditions, prerequisites, and behavior when optional parameters are omitted. It is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 basic descriptions for all parameters. The description adds only minor clarification that 'diff' should be a unified diff string and that 'synthesize' generates a report. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 it performs a mutual code review on a unified diff string. It differentiates from siblings like 'review_code' and 'review_file' by specifying that the diff text should be passed directly, not a file or code snippet.

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 indicates when to use the tool (when a unified diff string is available) and clarifies that no git invocation is performed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives to the siblings.

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