shadow_review_run

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false but the description does not fully disclose side effects of a normal run (e.g., does it spawn? advance cursor?). It details dry_run behavior but leaves normal behavior implied. The addition of dry_run details is helpful but not complete for transparency.

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 brief, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides essential information. No superfluous text. Perfectly sized for its purpose.

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 has only two optional parameters and an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and use cases. It lacks a definition of 'shadow-review' but that is likely domain knowledge. Overall, it is adequately complete for agent invocation.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains both parameters thoroughly: force bypasses daemon disable, dry_run short-circuits and returns diagnostics. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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. The verb 'fire' and resource 'shadow-review pass' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'shadow_review_status' which checks status.

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 gives explicit usage contexts: force is for tests and one-shot triage, dry_run is for inspecting candidate windows before spawning. It does not compare directly with alternatives like candidate_review_run, but provides clear when-to-use scenarios.

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