trigger_bugbot_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the dry_run parameter ('when True, analyze without posting to SCM (still billed)'), which adds transparency. However, it does not mention whether the review is asynchronous, any required permissions, or potential side effects like creating a billable event.

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 short and to the point, with the purpose and HTTP method front-loaded. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first line explains the action, and the bullet points define the parameters. No unnecessary words.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values or expected outcomes beyond queueing. Missing context includes whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, and how to retrieve review results. However, given the output schema, some burden is lifted.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which lacks descriptions (schema coverage 0%). It explains that pr_url is a 'Full GitHub PR or GitLab MR URL' and clarifies the dry_run behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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: 'Queue a Bugbot review (POST /bugbot/review)'. It provides the HTTP method and endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_bugbot_repos and update_bugbot_repo by focusing on triggering a review.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains the parameters but lacks context on when a review should be triggered or when other bugbot tools might be more appropriate.

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