git_review_diff

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It describes the core action (review and scan) but does not disclose potential side effects such as whether it modifies files, requires network access, or creates any artifacts. The read-only nature is assumed but not stated.

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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope. It avoids redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what it does and when to use it. It could mention the format of the review output (e.g., a report or comments), but this is not essential given the lack of an output schema.

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 schema already provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters (cwd, stagedOnly, targetBranch), covering their meanings and default behaviors. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so it earns the baseline score for full schema coverage.

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's function: 'Perform an automated AI code review on git diff.' It identifies the specific resource (git diff) and the types of issues it scans for (security leaks, dangerous calls, code smells, missing tests). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_status or git_smart_commit.

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 tool is for reviewing changes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since sibling tools have clearly different purposes (status, commit, resolve, changelog), the usage context is somewhat implied, but no direct guidance or exclusion is provided.

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