brainstorm_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds process transparency: multiple models review independently, findings are synthesized and deduplicated, and it states the output verdict types. This enriches understanding beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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 concise—three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value: what it does, how it works, and when to use it. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by outlining the output structure (severity, file/line refs, verdict). It covers the main workflow and use cases, leaving parameter specifics to the schema. Adequate for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention how to format the diff or handle errors.

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% with all six parameters explained. The description itself adds minimal parameter detail beyond stating 'Pass a diff' and mentioning the verdict values. Since the schema already covers parameter meaning, the description does not significantly enhance understanding, matching the 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 'Multi-model code review' and specifies the action: pass a diff and receive structured findings with severity, file/line references, and a verdict. It also lists concrete use cases (PR reviews, code audits, pre-commit checks), distinguishing it from sibling brainstorming 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 description explicitly says 'Use this for PR reviews, code audits, or pre-commit checks,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is specific enough for typical scenarios.

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