Review against repo guidelines

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: explains that host mode is a self-review, provides mode interpretation, and notes scoping behavior. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc., and description does not contradict.

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 informative but slightly lengthy. It front-loads key distinctions (mode='host' behavior) and avoids unnecessary repetition. Could be trimmed, but it's efficient given the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, scoping, advisory behavior), the description fully covers usage, result interpretation, and edge cases. Output schema exists and annotations support it, so no gaps remain.

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% and parameters are well-documented in the schema. Description adds minimal extra detail (e.g., scoping per directory relates to cwd), but overall the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description clearly state the tool reviews the diff against repo-specific guideline files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'diffgate_analyze' or 'diffgate_deep_review' by specifying the exact resource (guideline files).

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 explains when to use the tool, how to interpret results based on mode ('host' vs 'model'), and gives crucial guidance: 'Treat host-mode results as ADVISORY only — never block the change on them.' It also notes scoping per directory.

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