coeus_review_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, how severity thresholds affect results, or any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence that states the action and scope. There is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core function.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output will be (report, format), how focus_areas or severity_threshold work, or how this differs from other review tools. The agent would need to infer too much.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter meaning, but the schema already provides basic descriptions. The description mentions 'requested severity/output constraints' which loosely maps to the severity_threshold and output_format parameters, but adds no new detail beyond the schema.

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') on a specific resource ('a code blob') and lists the aspects it evaluates (quality, security, performance). It distinguishes itself from siblings like coeus_git_diff_review (diffs) and coeus_review_pr (PRs) by specifying 'code blob', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as coeus_review or coeus_analyze. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer.

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