local_code_review

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

Discloses 'privacy-preserving' behavior (local processing) which is critical context absent from annotations. However, lacks disclosure of read-only vs destructive behavior, output format, error handling, or side effects—significant gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Extremely concise two-clause structure with zero waste. Front-loads the privacy-preserving characteristic, follows with scope parameters, and ends with critical path parameter requirement. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequately covers input parameters via combination of description and complete schema. However, lacks output description (no output schema exists) and omits behavioral details like error conditions or file size limits that would be expected for a complete tool definition.

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 has 100% coverage establishing baseline of 3. Description repeats enum values (security/performance/style/comprehensive) and hidden files requirement already documented in schema parameter descriptions, adding minimal incremental semantic value.

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?

States specific function (privacy-preserving code review) and scopes (security/performance/style/comprehensive). The 'privacy-preserving' qualifier distinguishes intent from siblings like analyze_file or code_quality_analyzer, though it doesn't explicitly contrast when to choose this over those alternatives.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to select this tool versus sibling analysis tools (analyze_file, code_quality_analyzer, security, etc.) or prerequisites for use. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are included.

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