review_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions reviewing for safety and constraints but does not state whether the tool modifies state, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. The behavior remains opaque.

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 a single succinct sentence (10 words) that front-loads the action and key terms. Every word serves a purpose, no 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?

Given the simple input (1 parameter) and no output schema, the description should cover what the output looks like or what happens after review. It does not mention return values, possible errors, or how the review results are presented, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it says 'associated with the patch' but does not clarify the format or expected identifier. No additional semantic enrichment.

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 action ('Review') and the resource ('proposed patch plan'), and specifies the aspects reviewed ('safety, target constraints, and completeness'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'propose_patch' and 'validate_patch'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_patch' or 'propose_patch'. It implies it is for reviewing after proposing, but lacks clarity on preconditions or exclusions.

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