review_file

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

Description reveals the multi-model review process (Claude and GPT-4o) and synthesis, adding transparency beyond no annotations. However, it does not state whether the tool modifies the file or is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects.

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, front-loaded with purpose, efficient and clear with no wasted words.

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?

Description explains the process but lacks detail on the output format or return value. Since no output schema exists, the agent needs more information about what the synthesis report looks like. Parameter coverage is good but completeness is moderate for a tool with four parameters.

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%, providing baseline 3. Description does not explain parameters beyond what schema already provides (e.g., what 'context' or 'synthesize' means in practice). No added value.

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?

Description clearly states 'Mutual code review on a file', specifying the action (review) and resource (file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like review_code and review_diff by focusing on file-level review.

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?

Description implies use for file review but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over review_code or review_diff. No direct guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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