bicameral_review_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states this is review-only, makes no plan, and makes no edits, so the safety profile is transparent. The added guarantee that every file:line finding is verified against lines the diff touches is valuable behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences front-load the key mode, then the operation, then the use condition. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the name or schema.

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?

The output schema covers return details, and the description covers purpose, safety, and verification. However, given 0% schema parameter coverage and four parameters, the missing semantics for workspace, model, and context make the definition not fully complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that base defaults to HEAD and is a git ref, but says nothing about the required workspace and model parameters or the optional context value, leaving the agent to guess valid inputs.

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 names the precise action (reviews the working tree diff against a git ref), the scope (diff vs. base), and the deliverable (file:line findings verified to be in the diff). It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bicameral_review, relying on the '-diff' name and wording.

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 tool explicitly tells the agent when to invoke it ('Use when the user asks for a review or a second opinion on a change') and rules out planning/editing behavior. It does not name alternative tools for planning or editing, so it lacks the explicit exclusion routing needed for a 5.

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