coeus_design_review_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Review ... with concrete implementation fixes', which implies analysis and suggestions but does not disclose whether the tool modifies files, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how it handles inputs. There is no mention of output format, error behavior, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool that could potentially interact with file systems.

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 sentence of 12 words, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and targets. It is appropriately concise for a tool that likely requires more explanation, but the brevity itself is a strength. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral details, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'concrete implementation fixes' means, which parameters are required or optional, how to supply the screenshot path, or what the tool returns. An agent would have to inspect the schema (which itself is unhelpful) or infer from the name. This falls far short of being a complete description 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 description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions like 'Css', 'Html', 'Goals', 'Model', etc., are essentially tautological echoes of the parameter names, adding no meaning. The tool description itself says nothing about parameters. Since the schema descriptions technically cover all parameters, the description does not need to compensate, but it also adds no value, so a 3 is the correct 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Review') and its targets ('screenshot, HTML, and CSS artifacts') with a specific outcome ('concrete implementation fixes'). This is not a tautology and is specific enough to convey the basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'coeus_design_review' or 'coeus_review_bundle', which likely overlap in function, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use this for bundled artifacts' or 'use design_review instead for standalone reviews'. Thus, usage guidance is absent, not misleading, so a score of 2 is appropriate.

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