palinode_review

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — proposes, never applies', adding behavioral context about the nature of proposals. It also lists the health signals considered, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately address key behavioral and usage details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, full annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage. It lists health signals and proposed operations, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns. However, the lack of any detail about the output format or structure (e.g., is it a list of proposals? JSON?) is a minor gap, but not critical given the advisory nature.

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 already describes the 'project' parameter with explanation of its meaning and default behavior. The description adds the instruction 'Omit `project` to review the whole store', which slightly clarifies usage but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: composing deterministic health signals for a project and proposing corrective operations. It uses specific verbs ('composes', 'proposes') and a resource ('project-memory review'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like palinode_doctor by its advisory and non-applying nature, and by listing specific health signals.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is read-only and never applies changes, and it explains how to scope the review to a specific project or the whole store by omitting the 'project' parameter. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient for safe invocation.

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