review_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a corrected diff or an empty patch when no correction is justified, and it treats the patch as 'untrusted', implying a security-aware review. However, it does not elaborate on error handling, permission requirements, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and purpose. It avoids redundancy and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 is minimal for a tool with 7 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema. It explains the core behavior but does not cover parameter relationships, expected input formats, or edge cases. An agent would need additional guidance to correctly invoke the tool, especially with zero schema descriptions and no annotations.

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 does not explain any of the 7 parameters. While parameter names like 'task', 'candidate_patch', and 'allowed_paths' are self-explanatory to a degree, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field names. The tool requires 4 parameters, but the description gives no guidance on how to fill them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('untrusted candidate patch'), and clearly states the output ('corrected replacement diff, or an empty patch'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_patch, which creates patches, and submit_patch_job, which manages jobs.

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 implies the use case: reviewing an untrusted candidate patch and potentially returning a corrected diff. It establishes clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for patch generation) or name alternatives. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks explicit exclusions.

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