get_review_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Applies file filtering' but does not explain what filtering is applied (e.g., based on file extensions or rules). It also mentions returning a diff_ref but does not describe the format or any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks detail on how results are determined.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and key behavior. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given 5 parameters (some conditional) and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It omits details like how mode affects parameter requirements and what the diff_ref actually contains. However, the schema fills in many gaps. For a tool that feeds into downstream tools, it may be sufficient, but it leaves some ambiguity for standalone use.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema with full coverage (100%). The description adds no additional insight beyond the schema, e.g., it does not explain how 'mode' controls filtering or that 'to'/'from' are conditional. With high schema coverage, baseline score of 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's purpose: 'Determine which files need review from a git diff.' It specifies the verb (determine), resource (files from a git diff), and mentions the output ('returns a diff_ref to pass to downstream tools'). It also hints at its role in a pipeline, distinguishing it from siblings like get_file_bundle or position_comment.

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 when you have a git diff and need to filter files for review, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or mention of sibling tools like get_file_bundle for bundling files.

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