workflow_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the decision semantics ('acceptance or bounded rework') and an authorization restriction, but it does not describe side effects, finality, what happens after a 'changes' decision, or whether the recorded review creates notifications or state transitions.

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 only two sentences long, contains no filler, and front-loads the most decision-relevant information. Every clause adds value: what the reviewer does, the independent nature of the review, and the worker-role restriction.

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?

For a tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It omits return behavior, round semantics, workflow effects after review, and does not distinguish the tool from the many review/workflow siblings in context.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It adds meaning to the decision enum by mapping 'accepted' to acceptance and 'changes' to bounded rework, but it leaves taskId, round, and notes to be inferred solely from their names and schema constraints.

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 names a specific action ('records independent acceptance or bounded rework'), a specific actor ('Original Codex reviewer'), and an explicit restriction ('Worker role cannot approve'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like review_complete or review_pending, but the role and decision scope make the core purpose reasonably clear.

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 provides a clear usage boundary by stating that the worker role cannot approve, implying this tool is for the original Codex reviewer. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over related siblings such as review_complete, review_pending, or workflow_dispatch, nor does it mention prerequisites for review.

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