vibe_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool performs a multi-agent code review, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files), authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the 'three perspectives'. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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, which is concise, but it is too brief to convey essential information. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices substance. A 3 reflects that it is not overly long, but lacks necessary detail.

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 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described in the text, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters relate to the review process, what the output contains, or how to use the tool effectively. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the input side is severely lacking.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description fails to explain any of the three parameters ('ctx', 'files', 'requirements'). The agent has no guidance on what values to provide for 'ctx' or the structure of 'files' objects. This is a critical gap.

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 identifies the tool as a multi-agent code review from three perspectives. It uses a specific verb ('review') and resource ('code'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vibe_test' or 'vibe_docs', though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify whether this tool is meant as a final review or a preliminary check, nor how it differs from 'vibe_audit' or 'vibe_verify'.

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