review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool uses 'pattern matching', detects issues, and returns a score (0-100) and detailed report. This gives reasonable insight into behavior, but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or limitations such as scope of pattern matching (e.g., only common patterns).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines what it does, second lists detected categories, third describes output and input types. No redundant or filler content.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains return values (score and detailed report). It covers the range of inputs (files, URLs, projects) and focuses. However, it does not clarify behavior when no parameters are provided (e.g., whether it defaults to a specific mode or requires at least one).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter purposes (files, URLs, projects, focus) but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. For example, 'focus' enum values are listed in the description but already elaborated in the schema's description field.

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 verb 'Analyze code for issues using pattern matching' and specifies the resource as code. It lists four categories of issues (security, performance, coding standards, architecture) which distinguishes it from generic tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'analyze' tool, which could overlap in functionality.

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 usage for code review with specific focus areas and input types (files, URLs, projects). It provides some guidance on when to use (to detect various issues) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. No mention of when not to use this tool vs. siblings like 'workflow' or 'health'.

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