github_request_reviewers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether reviewers are appended or replaced), permission requirements, or response behavior.

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 very concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a compact args list. Every sentence contributes meaning, especially the comma-separated format hint for reviewers, and there is no fluff.

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 is simple and the output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks context about how reviewers are applied (append vs. replace) and when this operation is appropriate, which would be expected for a complete understanding.

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 compensate. It adds some semantic value, particularly for 'reviewers' (comma-separated usernames) and 'session_name' (GitHub session to use), but other parameters (owner, repo, pr_number) are only named, not enriched.

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 ('Request') with a clear resource ('reviewers') and target ('pull request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_create_pr and github_update_pr, which cover PR creation and general updates.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as github_update_pr or github_list_pr_reviews. There are no exclusions or context clues beyond the tool's name and generic description.

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