list_pull_request_participants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool lists participants (a read operation) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or describe any side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent about the operation's nature.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a bullet-like argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no waste. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details, but it does mention that roles and approval statuses are included. It covers all 5 parameters with clear explanations. The description is nearly complete for a simple list tool; a minor gap is that it does not mention the response format or pagination metadata, but these are likely handled by the output schema.

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 0%, so the description must document parameters. It does so effectively, explaining each parameter (project_key, repo_slug, pr_id, start, limit) and noting that start and limit are for pagination with defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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), the resource (participants/reviewers of a pull request), and the output (roles and approval statuses). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pull_request_comments or list_pull_request_commits.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides implied usage through its name and description, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references. The pagination parameters (start, limit) are documented, which helps, but no context for decision-making.

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