agy_review_commit

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It discloses async behavior ('return immediately') and hints at no manual polling, but omits side effects (e.g., file creation) or authorization needs. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action, guidance, post-run instruction. No redundancy, tightly packed with useful information.

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 an output schema (context signal), the description fails to address the complexity of 11 parameters. Missing prerequisites, return behavior beyond 'return immediately', and relationship to siblings like agy_login for auth. Incomplete for effective 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 coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the 11 parameters. Only 'scope_paths' is hinted at. With zero parameter elaboration, the agent cannot understand inputs beyond names.

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 action: 'Start a typed review Run for one commit and return immediately.' It specifies the resource (review run for a commit) and distinguishes from siblings like agy_review_branch (branch) and agy_review_result (result retrieval).

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Keep issue focused and use narrow scope_paths when possible' advises on tool usage; 'prefer agy_review_result over manually polling raw artifacts' directs to a sibling for downstream actions. Clear when-to-use and what-not-to-do.

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