review_script

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Static analysis code review,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly confirm this or address potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The implication is reasonable but not explicit, so it partially compensates.

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 paragraph that efficiently lists check categories and the return value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it could use bullet points for improved readability, it remains focused and without extraneous content.

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 complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description explains the return value (score 0-10, verdict, guidance) and covers major check categories. However, it does not detail the output structure, error handling (e.g., invalid script), or provide examples. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 50% (only 'script' has a description). The tool description adds meaning about what the review checks, but it does not explain the 'type' parameter (e.g., how it affects analysis) or the default value. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent unclear about the parameter's role.

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 performs 'Static analysis code review for a ServiceNow script' and lists specific check categories (critical, anti-patterns, performance, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like test_code_file or analyze_performance. The verb and resource are specific, and the purpose is immediately clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when NOT to use it, or when another tool (e.g., analyze_performance, test_code_file) would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent without comparative context.

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