agy_review_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is an asynchronous run requiring agy_run_wait and that agy_run_observe should be avoided except for bridge debugging. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, sandbox behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by efficient workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 12 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions. The description covers the run lifecycle but leaves many critical parameters unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly with all options.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only adds meaning for scope_paths ('use narrow scope_paths') and indirectly for issue ('Keep issue focused'). The other ten parameters, including base_ref, sandbox, include_untracked, and dangerously_skip_permissions, receive no explanation in the description.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Start a typed review Run' for 'branch and working-tree changes.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like agy_review_commit and agy_review_files, which target different review scopes.

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 concrete workflow guidance: wait with agy_run_wait, prefer agy_review_result, and avoid frequent agy_run_observe calls. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over agy_review_commit or agy_review_files, but the scope distinction is implied.

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