agy_review_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies the tool is asynchronous by advising to wait for completion, and suggests not polling excessively. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, missing an opportunity to add transparency.

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: a single clear sentence for purpose followed by three instructional sentences. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though a more organized format could improve readability.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, async, multiple siblings), the description lacks completeness. It provides workflow guidance but omits parameter explanations and does not clarify the meaning of 'typed review Run.' With an output schema present, return values are covered, but parameter semantics are entirely missing.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description does not explain any of the 12 parameters, including the required 'issue' and 'workspace,' nor does it define 'scope_paths' despite mentioning it. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 'Start a typed review Run for branch and working-tree changes,' specifying the verb (start), resource (review run), and context (branch and working-tree changes). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_review_commit and agy_review_result.

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 explicit guidance: 'Keep issue focused and use narrow scope_paths when possible,' and outlines the workflow: 'Wait for completion with agy_run_wait, then prefer agy_review_result.' It also advises against frequent agy_run_observe calls, offering clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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