agy_review_commit

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 the tool returns immediately and that the run completes later, implying async behavior and artifacts. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, sandbox behavior, or what persistent state is created.

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 with no filler. The first states the core action, the second gives scoping guidance, and the third directs follow-up behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For an 11-parameter async tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description is too thin. It covers the essential starting action and follow-up routing, but an agent cannot confidently infer required commit/workspace semantics, prerequisites, or side effects.

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%, and the description only references scope_paths and a focused issue. Required parameters like commit and workspace are left semantically unexplained, and model, sandbox, timeout_seconds, output_file, and dangerously_skip_permissions receive no guidance.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Start a typed review Run for one commit and return immediately.' This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_review_branch and agy_review_files by scoping it to a single commit.

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?

It gives practical usage guidance: 'Keep issue focused and use narrow scope_paths when possible.' It also explicitly routes post-completion behavior to agy_review_result instead of polling raw artifacts. It does not provide a full comparison against all review siblings, but the single-commit scope implies the boundary.

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