review_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and runs locally in Claude Code, which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the output format is. This leaves behavioral 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 concise with two sentences plus a notable line about being free. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The free note is useful but slightly extraneous, keeping it from a 5.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the purpose and output highlights but does not mention output format, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., reviews must exist). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (codeDir, reviewIdA, reviewIdB). The description adds little beyond noting the tool shows new/resolved issues and score changes, which does not directly explain parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compares two specific reviews and shows what changed (new issues, resolved issues, score changes). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review_history or semantic_compare.

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 mentions it is free and runs within Claude Code, which hints at when to use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like quick_review or compare_sites. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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