sally_review_pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'Read-only: never modifies files' and 'never stored, never used for training.' Provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Concise but complete. Front-loaded with core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage, privacy, read-only, return format, pricing. No fluff.

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?

Moderate complexity with 2 parameters, no output schema. Description explains return format 'markdown review with a verdict and concrete findings.' Sufficient for agent to understand outcome.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds context: 'Sends only the provided diff to the Cynical Sally backend' and explains diff format (e.g., git diff main) and lang examples. Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it reviews a PR diff like a senior engineer with opinions. Verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing catching what automated tools miss.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants a pull request, commit, or unified diff reviewed before merging.' Provides usage context. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear.

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