Critique against corpus

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds useful specifics: repeated submissions append log entries rather than overwrite, and server-side BYO generation is not implemented so the caller must supply the analysis. This clarifies the otherwise confusing mode field's effect. Does not cover error behavior or permission needs.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with dual purpose, then usage routing, then the retrieve-then-submit mechanics. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the retrieve-context-then-submit-findings flow and the append semantics, which are the essentials for a stateful write tool with a nested findings object. Lacks detail on returned grounding content or validation rules, a minor gap.

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 100%, so all four parameters including mode and findings are already documented. The description largely echoes the schema's own note that omitting findings returns grounding only and that mode does not run a provider model. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific dual purpose: prepare workspace grounding for a draft critique or append agent findings to a critique log. It is clear enough to act on and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming assemble_workspace, get_workspace, and revise_script. Slightly undercut by the name implying it performs the critique itself, when the description clarifies the agent does the analysis.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use after assemble_workspace, use get_workspace for earlier critiques, use revise_script for revisions. It gives the exact empty-then-populate workflow: omit findings to retrieve context, then submit analysis with findings. Nothing about when to use it versus alternatives is left to inference.

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