github_pulls_list_requested_reviewers

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Get all requested reviewers' without mentioning read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential response structure (e.g., includes users and teams). This is insufficient.

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, clear sentence of 7 words. No redundancy, front-loaded key information.

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 simple read operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more detail (e.g., pagination, return format) would improve completeness.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal (just parameter names). The tool description adds no additional semantics or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline for high coverage is 3, but the lack of extra context reduces value.

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 the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'all requested reviewers for a pull request'. It differentiates implicitly from sibling tools like list_reviews (actual reviews) and request_reviewers (adding reviewers). However, it could explicitly state what it does not cover.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_pulls_list_reviews or github_pulls_get. The description lacks context for selection.

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