github_pulls_list_reviews

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no reviews exist. The description is completely silent on behavior beyond the basic action.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief and lacks structure. While it earns its place by stating the tool's purpose, it could be expanded without becoming overly verbose. Score reflects median efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return behavior (e.g., review details, pagination). It fails to do so. The context of being part of a large GitHub API server with many siblings also demands more distinction, which the description does not provide.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, but the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning, such as clarifying that 'owner' refers to the repository owner's username or organization. Baseline is 3 given high schema coverage, but the lack of value-add keeps it at 3.

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 'List' and the resource 'reviews for a pull request', making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish itself from related sibling tools like `github_pulls_list_review_comments`, but the name itself is sufficiently 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `github_pulls_get_review` or `github_pulls_list_review_comments`. This omission could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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