deepseek_review

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: DeepSeek is instructed not to modify files.' It adds value by explaining the agent will not make changes and by stating the output behavior: 'Returns only material findings. Returns compact structured JSON.' Though it doesn't mention advanced details like auth or rate limits, it enriches beyond the annotations with output expectations.

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 exceedingly concise—two sentences—yet packs in all key information: action, read-only guarantee, output filtering, and output format. It front-loads the primary purpose and delivers maximum information density without redundancy.

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 delegation tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately contextualizes the tool's role and output expectations. It covers the core aspects: what it does, its safety profile, and partial output details. While it could elaborate on 'material findings' or the exact JSON structure, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without confusion.

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 has 100% description coverage, with parameters like task and focus clearly documented. However, the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. It simply outlines the tool's high-level behavior without elaborating on parameter usage or providing examples. Thus, it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Delegate a focused code review to DeepSeek Harness.' It distinctly identifies the operation (delegating a code review) and differentiates it from sibling tools like deepseek_task or deepseek_fix, which likely handle task execution or bug fixes. The 'focused' modifier adds precision, and the description leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage ('Delegate a focused code review') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusions. There's no mention of alternatives or when not to use it. A 3 reflects that the usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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