review_only

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool uses Gemini for review and returns feedback and approval status, which adds some context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'approval status' entails, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of one sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. There's no wasted text, and it gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly contrasting with the sibling tool for better clarity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (code review with AI), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and outcome but lacks details on the review process, output format, or error scenarios. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but could be more comprehensive for better agent understanding.

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 the single parameter 'directory' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details.

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: 'Review code changes using Gemini and return feedback without committing.' It specifies the action (review), the method (using Gemini), and the outcome (return feedback without committing). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'review_and_commit' beyond the 'without committing' phrase, which is implied but not directly contrasted.

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 when to use this tool through the phrase 'without committing,' suggesting it's for review-only scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling 'review_and_commit' or provide any alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is present but minimal and not comprehensive.

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