agy_review_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (validate/summarize) and the precondition (completed runs), but leaves 'consume' ambiguous and doesn't state whether calling has side effects or whether results are one-time. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Two sentences, action-first, no filler; the second sentence adds practical guidance. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic call context and intended use. However, with no annotations, it omits side-effect behavior, alternative tools, and run_id provenance, leaving an agent to infer too much. Adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema only defines run_id as a required string and description coverage is 0%. The description never explains what run_id refers to or how to obtain it; it only implies a Run is identified. For a single self-descriptive parameter this is a moderate gap, but the lack of compensation for 0% coverage reduces the score.

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 uses concrete verbs ('Validate and summarize') and names the resource ('artifact from a typed review Run'). It also states the intended scope ('commit, branch, or file review Runs'), which helps distinguish it from generic run tools. It doesn't explicitly name sibling agy_run_result, so some ambiguity remains.

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 explicitly positions itself as the 'Preferred way to consume completed ... review Runs', giving a direct usage condition. It does not mention when to avoid it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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