Reactive Review PR

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: commit-aware caching, parallel execution, session management, telemetry, and return of a session ID. It also references get_review_status for follow-up. However, it does not mention potential side effects like resource creation or cleanup.

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 moderately concise with bullet points and clear sections. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. However, it includes environment variables and a list of features that, while useful, add length. Could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers the return value (session ID) and directs to get_review_status for progress. It explains advanced features and environment configuration. However, it lacks preconditions such as needing an existing PR or valid git repository.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that parameters like 'changed_files' can be a CSV or JSON array, which is already in the schema. No additional format or usage constraints are explained.

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 tool's purpose: 'Start a reactive PR code review session.' It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like review_auto or review_changes, which may perform similar functions without reactive features.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions advanced features and environment variables but does not specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, nor does it give prerequisites or when not to use it.

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