ai_code_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cost, which is useful context, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of bugs and improvements). It does not contradict annotations, but could be more informative for a tool with potential behavioral complexities.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one noting the cost. It is front-loaded with the main function, but the cost detail, while relevant, could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity of code review (which may involve detailed outputs) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists what the tool returns but does not explain the format or structure of the output. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it falls short for effective agent use.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('code' and 'language'). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 with specific verbs ('AI-powered code review') and resources ('code'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on code analysis rather than sentiment, translation, or other unrelated tasks. The mention of 'bugs, improvements, security issues, and best practices' adds specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost ('$0.05 USDC via x402'), which could imply a usage consideration, but does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons with other tools like 'ai_sentiment' or 'ai_summarize' for code-related tasks.

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