adversarial_review

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a different model family (Gemini Pro) and that it hunts for flaws, edge cases, security issues, and unstated assumptions. This provides good insight into its behavior, though it does not mention side effects, cost, or time implications.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context on what the tool does and when to use it. However, it does not describe the output format or return value, which would be helpful for an agent to know what to expect.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context on when to use the tool and what it does, which enhances understanding of the parameters (e.g., 'focus' is explained by the tool's purpose). This adds value beyond the schema, justifying a score above 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get an adversarial second opinion from a different model family (Gemini Pro).' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying use cases: 'ALWAYS use this for plan critiques, design reviews, and pre-merge code review.' This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 recommends using the tool for plan critiques, design reviews, and pre-merge code review, and explains what it does ('hunts for flaws, edge cases, security issues, and unstated assumptions'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the positive guidance is strong and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_files or deep_search.

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