coeus_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the finder-then-verify pipeline and JSON findings output. However, it does not mention side effects, input relationships, preview behavior, or what happens with finder/verifier model selection.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the description is immediately usable as a quick orientation. The effort enum restated in the schema is redundantly summarized in one clear phrase.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient guidance for correct invocation. Missing context includes how code/diff/context/repository_path relate, what preview_only controls, what the findings JSON structure is, and how this tool differs from its many review siblings.

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 even though the description mostly restates parameter names like 'Code', 'Diff', and 'Effort'. The description adds only the effort enum values, which are already present in the schema, and adds no new meaning about how the 13 parameters interact.

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 a structured finder-then-verify code review and that it returns findings JSON, so the core action and output are understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling review tools such as coeus_review_code, coeus_git_diff_review, or coeus_review_pr.

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 'code review' implies when the tool is relevant, and the effort levels signal depth, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling review tools are provided.

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