Get a change request review by its ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the HTTP GET method and exact endpoint, which provides structural context but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with the action and the full endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could benefit from slightly more context (e.g., that it returns a single review object) without adding verbosity.

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 GET operation, the description is adequate but minimal. There is no output schema, so the agent must infer the return structure from the tool name. The description does not mention what fields the review contains, which could be helpful for downstream use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (spaceId, changeRequestId, reviewId, body). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, only repeating the 'by its ID' phrase. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a change request review by its ID'), and includes the precise HTTP endpoint. It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like gitbook_get_reviews_by_change_request_id (which lists reviews) and gitbook_get_change_request_by_id (which gets the change request itself).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing reviews first). It does not specify any prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and endpoint.

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