Pre-review quality gate

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the action and the heuristic categories, and implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it can modify anything, or how results are reported. This is a moderate gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the check categories are compactly listed, and the purpose and reference to the team checklist are included without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and no annotations or output schema. The description covers input scope and intended timing well. However, because there is no output schema, the description should have said at least something about what the caller receives after the checks run. That omission keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The schema only declares 'text' with no description, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the text can be generated content or a diff, and by linking the checks to that input. It does not specify formatting or size limits, but for a single parameter this is meaningful added context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run heuristic checks' over 'generated text or a diff', and lists concrete check categories (secrets, TODOs, placeholder text, size). It clearly distinguishes itself from the unrelated task and document sibling tools by focusing on pre-review quality validation.

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 explicitly defines when to use the tool: 'before it goes to a human reviewer'. It also scopes the input to generated text or a diff, which gives clear context. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is necessary.

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