review_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns a corrected diff or empty patch, but lacks details on side effects, rejection handling, or system state changes. The term 'untrusted' hints at security but is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from structuring, but remains concise and clear.

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 7 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context. Key terms like task, file_context, and allowed_paths are left undefined, and output format is vague.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level information. It only mentions 'candidate patch' implicitly, but none of the other 6 parameters (e.g., task, file_context, allowed_paths) are explained.

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 verb 'review' and the resource 'untrusted candidate patch', with specific outcomes of returning a corrected replacement diff or an empty patch. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate_patch (create) and submit_patch_job (submit).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies use for security review of patches, but does not mention alternatives like generate_patch or submit_patch_job for different stages.

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