review_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only says 'run an AI code review' without specifying if it posts comments, returns results, or modifies anything. This is insufficient for an AI agent.

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 at one sentence, but it lacks structure; front-loading the key action and resource works, but it is minimally informative.

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 no output schema and the tool's complexity (AI review), the description is too brief. It does not explain the review output (e.g., text returned, comment posted), making it incomplete for an agent to understand outcomes.

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 only 25% (only 'filename' has a description). The description adds general context ('within a pull request') but does not explain parameters like 'owner', 'repo', 'pull_number' beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Run an AI code review') and scope ('on a single file within a pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'review_pr' which likely covers the entire 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 description implies when to use this tool (for single file review) vs. alternatives (e.g., 'review_pr'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific usage context.

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