review-approach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only indicates a review/validation action, but it does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything, what permissions are needed, or if the action is reversible. It lacks necessary behavioral context.

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 that is front-loaded and concise. However, it achieves conciseness at the expense of necessary details, making it only marginally acceptable.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more information about inputs, outputs, and behavior. It fails to explain what constitutes a valid approach, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The description is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. However, the description only mentions 'proposed approach' and does not explain the 'context' parameter or any formatting requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the parameters.

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 'Review and validate a proposed implementation approach before coding begins' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('review and validate') and resource ('proposed implementation approach'). It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'generate-plan' (which creates plans) and 'strategic-plan' (high-level planning).

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 phrase 'before coding begins' provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. This is a minor gap, but the implied usage is clear.

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