agy_review_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'artifact-gated' and 'typed' as behavior hints, but does not explain what artifact gating means, whether the Run is asynchronous, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. This leaves too much behavior opaque.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is too thin for a 10-parameter tool: 'artifact-gated' and 'typed' are jargon that would benefit from explanation, and no parameter-related structure is included. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 10 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient for correct invocation. It omits context about required inputs, the Run lifecycle, and the meaning of artifact gating. While the output schema may cover return values, the description still fails to provide enough surrounding context.

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% across 10 parameters, including required fields such as paths, issue, and workspace. The description never explains these parameters, their defaults, or their relationships; 'local files' only weakly maps to paths. This is a severe gap for a tool with many undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific action—'Start'—and a resource: 'artifact-gated typed review Run for local files.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling review tools like agy_review_commit and agy_review_branch by targeting local files. However, key terms like 'artifact-gated' and 'typed' are left undefined, preventing a perfect score.

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 phrase 'for local files' gives a clear context for when to use this tool. Yet it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative siblings such as agy_run_start, agy_review_commit, or agy_review_branch, nor does it state when not to use it.

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