code_review

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

The description explains the tool injects code/file_path and a checklist, the agent reads code and outputs structured issues, and that MCP does no static scanning. This adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation without contradiction.

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 concise (two sentences in Chinese plus a short note) and gets to the point quickly, though it could be slightly more structured for scanning.

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?

The description explains the tool's approach and mentions output format (severity, category, suggestion) but lacks details on how parameters like project_root and file_path interact, and has no output schema to compensate. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool is used for reviewing code quality and checking code issues, and distinguishes it by noting it's a guideline tool that does not perform static rule scanning, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 says to use when reviewing code quality and clarifies it's not static scanning, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to sibling tools like 'code_insight', leaving adoption decision partially ambiguous.

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