coeus_review_bundle

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns structured findings and that preview_only avoids calling the provider, which is meaningful. However, it does not describe side effects, requirements, or what 'structured findings' contain.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior before the preview_only caveat. The phrase 'Alias of coeus_review' adds marginal value but is not bloated. Every other part 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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It does not explain the expected structured findings shape, the route object, or when preview_only should be set. The alias reference does not compensate for these gaps.

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 parameter descriptions are just one-word labels. The description adds a little by grouping diff/code/context as the bundled review inputs and explaining preview_only's effect. It does not clarify focus defaults, provider/model behavior, or how the inputs 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 states a clear action and scope: bundle diff/code/context review and return structured findings. The phrase 'Alias of coeus_review' adds some confusion, but the rest makes the tool's purpose understandable. It does not differentiate from siblings like coeus_review or coeus_git_diff_review, which keeps it from 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus coeus_review, coeus_review_code, or coeus_git_diff_review. The preview_only note describes a mode, not a usage context. The alias statement implies interchangeability but never states when that is appropriate.

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