codereview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses parallel execution and parsing behavior, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only (likely), required permissions, or any limitations. More detail on behavioral traits would be helpful.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds behavior and use cases in a structured way. It is concise without being overly terse, though the pattern line could be integrated more smoothly.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the tool's functionality and use cases. It mentions parsing, severity tags, and raw text fallback, which is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds some value by implying agents as 'reviewer personas' and files as 'file contents'. But it doesn't explicitly define each parameter beyond the naming. Focus and timeout_seconds remain vague.

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 'Cross-agent code review' and explains it sends file contents to N agents in parallel with reviewer personas, parsing responses into severity-tagged findings. This distinguishes it from siblings like consult or debate_run.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: validate Claude's code via Codex + Gemini perspectives, surface bugs/edge cases/security issues, identify regressions. This provides clear guidance on when to use, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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