review_open

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, ensuring the agent knows it's safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it performs a read-only review, automatically switches to a new report file when the repository changes, and explicitly states it does NOT read README or textual introductions. This goes beyond the 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?

The description is concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the core action ('进入一个文件夹开始只读审查'). However, it packs multiple actions into one sentence, which could be better structured but remains dense and efficient.

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?

There is an output schema (though not detailed in the prompt), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. Given the tool's complexity (multiple steps), the description covers key aspects: read-only, repo detection, file inventory, big project check, and repo change handling. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but is adequate for agent use.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It mentions 'path' implicitly ('进入一个文件夹' - enter a folder) and provides context on usage. However, it does not specify the path format, whether it's absolute or relative, or any constraints. Since there is only one param, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully clarify semantics, so 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: enters a folder to begin a read-only review, with specific actions like identifying the repository, inventorying actual files, and checking if the repository changed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like review_scan and review_read by describing the initial open/inventory step.

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 implies when to use this tool: at the start of a review to open a folder assess its content(migrations), and mentions automatic switching to a new report if the repository changeswf. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is the entry point.

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