review

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 describes behavioral aspects like analyzing git diff and proposing updates for approval, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it modifies files, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently covers the tool's actions: review, analyze, check, identify, and propose. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides a clear purpose and high-level behavior. However, for a tool that performs analysis and proposes updates, it lacks details on what the output looks like, how approvals are handled, or any limitations, making it minimally adequate but with gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the tool's function. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Review uncommitted code changes' with specific actions like analyzing git diff, checking against tasks/architecture, identifying issues, and proposing updates. It uses a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('uncommitted code changes'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'organize' or 'parse-tasks'.

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 implies usage context through 'uncommitted code changes' and 'for user approval,' suggesting it's used during development before committing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sync' or 'organize,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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