review_code_diff

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'structured, actionable feedback' but does not describe what structure, any limitations, or side effects. Lacks details on return format, performance, or error handling, leaving agents uninformed.

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, no wasted words. It is direct and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage instructions. Highly concise.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, output schema existing), the description covers the core usage adequately. It could mention handling of invalid diffs or output format, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'Pass raw diff text' clarifies the diff parameter's content, and 'Optionally specify a focus area like 'security'' gives an example for the focus parameter. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Review a code diff') and the expected output ('structured, actionable feedback'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings (explain_concept, web_research) which have different purposes.

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 instructs to 'Pass raw diff text' and optionally specify a focus area. This provides clear input guidance. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. siblings, the tool's unique purpose (code review) makes it evident.

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