shadow_review_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that dry_run short-circuits before spawn, returns dialog dump, n_chars, and cursor, and causes no spawn or cursor advance. Force behavior is also explained. Missing details on side effects like resource consumption but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by two concise paragraphs for each parameter. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 two optional boolean parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It clarifies the dry_run output and force override, though it could briefly mention default behavior (e.g., normal run).

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 0%, yet the description thoroughly explains both parameters: force and dry_run, including their effects and use cases. This provides crucial meaning absent from the schema.

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 fires one shadow-review pass, using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like shadow_review_status and candidate_review_run by focusing on execution.

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 explains when to use force=True (daemon disabled, tests, one-shot triage) and dry_run=True (inspect candidates before evaluation). It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools but provides clear context for both parameters.

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