Review changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description repeats '(read-only)' and adds only the default base (HEAD) and the task-worktree mode; it says nothing about agent invocation latency, quota/fallback behavior, or what a review returns.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. It delivers the tool's action, safety note, and both operating modes compactly.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of return behavior, the description explains the two core modes but omits what the review returns, how agent/fallback selection works, and any constraints around model, workdir, or instructions. It is adequate but leaves important context gaps.

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 63%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for base (default HEAD) and task_id (task worktree changes), but leaves agent, model, workdir, instructions, output_schema, and fallback_agents entirely to the schema or unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource ('review a diff') and scopes it with two modes: uncommitted changes vs base, or a task's worktree changes. It is distinct from simply fetching a diff, but it never names any sibling tool (e.g., get_task_diff or ask) to make the differentiation explicit.

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?

It tells the agent when to use which mode: base for uncommitted changes (default HEAD) or task_id for a task's worktree. It does not provide exclusions or name an alternative tool for when a simple diff retrieval is sufficient, so it falls short of the 5-level 'when-not/alternatives' standard.

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