review-phab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool fetches a review prompt and revision context, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details about permissions, rate limits, or any potential side effects, which is a moderate gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Fetches') and immediately states the resource being fetched. There is no extraneous information, making it highly 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?

Given that an output schema exists and there is only one parameter, the description provides enough basic context for an agent to understand the tool's primary function. However, it omits usage guidance and details about error handling or authorization, which prevents a perfect score.

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 does not explain the revision_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is intuitive, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The tool would benefit from explaining what a revision_id is or where to find it.

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 it fetches 'the exact review prompt and revision context needed to review a Differential' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool inline-comments-phab, which presumably handles comments rather than review context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'without MCP sampling' but does not explain when a user would need this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when to use inline-comments-phab instead.

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