change_review

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

Annotations are all false (no hints), so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Never edits code' (read-only), discloses 'exit 3 = something to report', and warns that 'no finding' is not 'safe'. It also mentions 'read_first' and a character budget, providing useful 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 dense and packed into a single run-on sentence. It front-loads the main purpose but then lists many output categories and notes in a compressed style. It's concise but not well-structured; the information is accurate but could be better organized with separate sentences for clarity.

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?

For a tool with 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: what it does, output categories (definitions, dependents, findings, tests, unknowns, read_first), exit code, read-only nature, and a caution about findings. It lacks a detailed return format, but the absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the summary of what it returns.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by summarizing modes (working tree vs HEAD, base=REV, staged, targets) and mentions 'read_first' budget, but most parameter meanings are already in the schema. It doesn't significantly extend the semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: reviewing what a change touches, by concern. It is specific about the resource (a change) and the verb (review). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, but the function is unambiguous and distinct from the other tools listed, which focus on queries, inspection, or checks. The mention of 'verinoda review' anchors it as a review command.

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 implies when to use it (when reviewing a change's impact) but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions modes (working tree vs HEAD, staged, targets) which gives context, but no exclusions or comparison to siblings like code_check or decision_check. The 'planned' note hints at usage for planning changes.

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