auto_review_trigger

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the main behavioral traits: checking counters/state, firing review_thread in auto mode, and the force parameter's effect (skip check). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes (e.g., no pending thread), or permission requirements.

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 plus a third explaining force=True. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main behavior and force parameter, but lacks explanation for the focus parameter. It also does not detail what constitutes 'conditions are met' beyond the force exception. With an output schema present, return values are not needed, but missing parameter info reduces completeness.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains force=True skips counter check, but does not mention the 'focus' parameter at all. With 2 parameters, only one is partially explained, leaving a gap.

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 checks counters and close-thread state, then fires review_thread(mode='auto') for the richest pending thread if conditions are met. It distinguishes from siblings like review_thread by being an automatic trigger, and from other tools by its specific action.

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 clear usage context: use force=True after seeing skill_nudge or skill_hint to skip counter checks. While it implies normal usage when conditions are met, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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