review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool requests a review and is part of an 'Adversarial Review Loop', but does not mention side effects (e.g., external API calls, cost, latency) or whether it mutates state. This is a significant gap for an operation that invokes a CLI.

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: one line for purpose, one line for context, and a clean Args list. It is immediately readable and well-structured. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 description covers purpose and parameters well, and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained). However, it lacks context about the 'Adversarial Review Loop' workflow, any prerequisites, or behavioral specifics. Given the complexity of invoking an external CLI, the description is only minimally complete.

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 description includes an explicit Args list explaining each parameter: code (review target), language (programming language), and focus (comma-separated review areas). Since the schema itself has 0% description coverage, this fully compensates and adds meaning beyond the basic type/default information.

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: 'Codex CLI(GPT-5.4)にコードレビューを依頼' (request a code review from Codex CLI). This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'explain' and 'generate'. The additional phrase 'Adversarial Review Loopの実行部分' provides context without obscuring the main action.

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 through its explicit purpose ('request code review') but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools such as 'explain' or 'discuss'. The reference to 'Adversarial Review Loop' hints at a specific workflow but offers no concrete guidance on conditions for use.

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