list_review_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety behavior. The description does not contradict these but also adds little beyond the filter capability. Pagination behavior (e.g., cursor, default limit) is not described in the description, though the output schema and parameter descriptions partially cover this.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('List review requests') and adds only relevant filter details. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, with 6 parameters and a pagination cursor, the description could have provided more context on pagination or when to use this over search. It is minimally adequate but leaves some usage nuances implicit.

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?

With schema coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates by explicitly naming 'status' and 'claimability' as filters, clarifying their role. However, it does not explain cursor or how pagination works, and the three parameters with schema descriptions (limit, project_ref, agent_session_handle) are not enriched further.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'review requests' and specifies optional status and claimability filters. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review_request (single item) and mutation tools such as create/cancel/supersede_review_request.

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 implies usage for listing review requests with filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or get_review_request. No exclusions or preferred contexts are stated, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool's name and sibling names.

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