Two tools with reasonable naming and explicit schemas, but descriptions are generic and parameters lack guidance on format/validation. Both tools are correctly registered with input schemas in internal/mcp/server.go, making them verifiable. However, descriptions do not explain WHEN to use each tool, what prerequisites exist, or what data structures are returned. The consult_tech_lead tool's 'context' parameter has no type specification (just 'object'), and review_code's 'files' parameter similarly lacks detail. Error handling is present but minimal, no guidance on recovery or next steps for LLMs.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100 - 150 chars. Add WHEN to call, prerequisites, and what decision the LLM should expect. E.g., 'Before implementing any code plan, call this to get approval from the tech lead. You must incorporate their guidance or revised plan before proceeding.'
• Specify exact schema for 'context' and 'files' parameters. Use type: 'object' with additionalProperties: {type: 'string'} for file maps, and add description: 'Map of filenames (string keys) to file content (string values), e.g. {"src/main.go": "package main..."}'
• Document output schemas in tool descriptions or a separate appendix. E.g., 'Returns {decision: "approved"|"rejected"|"revise", reason: string, guidance: string, revisedPlan?: string, revisedFiles?: {filename: content}}'. This lets LLMs chain downstream actions.
• Add error categorization. When tech_lead.Review() fails, distinguish: retryable (network timeout, service temporarily unavailable) vs user-fixable (invalid task description) vs fatal (internal error). Return {error: string, category: 'retryable'|'user_fixable'|'fatal', nextSteps: string}.
• Rename consult_tech_lead to review_implementation_plan or approve_implementation_plan to clarify that it gates execution, not merely advises.
• Add 'rationale' and 'context' parameter descriptions: rationale should be 'brief explanation (50 - 200 chars) of why this approach was chosen' and context should be 'optional map of relevant filenames to existing code that informs this plan'.
• For review_code, clarify the files format: 'object with filenames as keys (string) and either full file content or unified diff as values (string). Example: {"src/main.go": "package main\nfunc main() {...}"}'