suggest_reviewers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'suggests reviewers' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, how the query is interpreted, what ranking criteria apply, or what the output contains. This leaves safety and side-effect behavior ambiguous.

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 single sentence is succinct and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it could be restructured to include key behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient to guide correct invocation. Important aspects like expected output, parameter interactions, and whether suggestions mutate anything are missing.

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 input schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions only 'query' and 'change', adding minimal meaning for those two parameters; 'limit', 'exclude_groups', 'reviewer_state', and 'gerrit_base_url' are not explained at all.

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 uses a specific verb 'suggests reviewers' and identifies the resource ('a change') and input ('a query'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'add_reviewer' by focusing on recommendation rather than modification, but it does not elaborate on the returned reviewer list or ranking.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like 'add_reviewer' or 'query_changes'. There are no use-case scenarios, exclusions, or conditions stated.

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