agy_review_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Validate and summarize,' which indicates read-like operations, but it doesn't clarify if the tool is idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what happens on invalid input. The output schema exists but doesn't cover behavior beyond return values.

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 two sentences long and front-loads purpose. It is concise and avoids extraneous information, though it could include more behavioral details without losing 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 the output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere. The description states what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on prerequisites, safety, and error handling. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, it is minimally complete but has gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning for the single parameter 'run_id.' However, the description does not explain how to obtain the run_id, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's type and requirement. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 tool validates and summarizes an artifact from a typed review run. It differentiates from siblings like agy_run_result by specifying it's for 'typed review Run' and mentions agy_review_commit/agy_review_branch as preferred inputs.

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 explicitly says it is the 'Preferred way to consume completed agy_review_commit/agy_review_branch runs,' providing clear context on when to use this tool. It implies not to use for other run types, though it doesn't explicitly state alternatives.

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