coeus_counterfactual_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the outcome but not how the tool behaves: whether it is read-only, requires external LLM calls, or has side effects. It also omits details about model/provider configuration that are present in the schema, leaving the agent without essential operational context.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and outcome. No wasted words or redundant phrasing. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too brief to cover operational details: it does not explain required parameters, the meaning of 'scenarios', configuration options, or what the agent should expect as a result. This is severely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Code', 'Diff'), providing little semantic value. The tool description adds no parameter information, leaving parameters like 'target' and 'scenarios' unexplained. This does not compensate for the shallow schema descriptions but meets the baseline.

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 states a specific verb (review) and resource (a change) with a clear outcome (expose hidden state, dependency, and release risks). The counterfactual angle distinguishes it from sibling review tools like coeus_review_code or coeus_review_pr, though it could be more explicit about the input format (code/diff) without relying on the schema.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies using it when considering alternate futures, but it does not state when not to use it or what to use for standard reviews. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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