Review a git diff to identify issues and get structured findings with a ship/hold status, enabling informed merge decisions.
Alias of coeus_review: review an explicit git diff and return structured findings (status/ship/findings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diff | Yes | Diff | |
| model | No | Model | |
| base_branch | No | Base branch | main |
| commit_message | No | Commit message |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the output shape ('structured findings (status/ship/findings)'), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or how it behaves on invalid inputs. It adds some value beyond the name but leaves the safety profile implicit.
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 entire description is one efficient sentence that immediately identifies the alias, the action, the resource, and the expected output. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 relatively simple review tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential invocation context. It mentions the output structure and points to the canonical coeus_review behavior via the alias. It could add more about optional parameter usage, but nothing critical is missing.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema's terse labels ('Diff', 'Model', 'Base branch', 'Commit message'), but the schema already documents all parameters.
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 reviews an explicit git diff and returns structured findings (status/ship/findings). It names the resource ('explicit git diff') and identifies itself as an alias of coeus_review, making its function immediately distinguishable from related review tools.
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 phrase 'review an explicit git diff' gives clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly enumerate when to avoid it or compare it to siblings like coeus_review_pr, but the 'explicit diff' framing is sufficient guidance for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.