sdd-review-test-cases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Record review' without explaining side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens after recording. The lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates state.

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 just one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks structure and fails to convey critical details, making it more of a placeholder than a useful summary.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, a brief description is inadequate. The tool appears to record a review outcome, but the description does not explain the inputs, outputs, or workflow context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 only 33% (only featureName has a description). The description does not mention any parameters, failing to clarify the meaning or format of expectedTasksRevision and expectedArtifactSha256. It adds no value beyond the schema and does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 states an action ('Record review') and a target ('tasks revision'), but it is vague about what recording a review entails and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like sdd-quality-check or sdd-approve. The phrase 'exact tasks revision' is ambiguous, leaving room for interpretation about the tool's precise role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools in the SDD workflow. The description does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion cases, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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