Review current changes with Octopus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states what the tool does (runs git diff if repoPath is given, uses HEAD with fallback to staged) and what it returns (findings and a summary). It also mentions the optional model and title, though it doesn't explicitly state any side effects or permissions. Overall, it provides good behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence earns its place. It covers the main usage modes, input handling, and output summary without any fluff. Perfectly concise for the functionality.

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 is moderately complex (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it explains the input options, fallback behavior, and return type. However, it doesn't mention what the findings look like or any limitations (e.g., diff size, performance). But since no annotations exist, the description does a good job covering the essential behavioral context. A small gap is lack of info on what 'summary' contains, but overall adequate.

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% and the description adds meaning: it explains the relationship between diff and repoPath (mutually exclusive alternatives), mentions the fallback to staged, and clarifies the default behavior for model. Even though the schema covers all params, the description adds practical usage semantics, which is valuable. Not a 5 because the schema descriptions are already quite detailed, but the description reinforces and clarifies the key logic.

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 runs an Octopus code review on a unified diff, with specific verbs (run, review) and resource (Octopus, unified diff). It distinguishes from siblings: octopus_status is for status, octopus_ask is for asking questions, while this one reviews changes. The first sentence is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly explains when to use it: for uncommitted/working changes, and provides two usage modes: pass diff directly or pass repoPath to run git diff. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with siblings is implied by the tool name and function. The second sentence gives clear context for usage.

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