github_request_reviewers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope), not the tool's behavioral traits (e.g., whether it modifies state, requires write permissions, or feedback on success). Critical gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff, but the routing info is generic and not tool-specific. Every sentence is short, but the content is insufficiently informative. Conciseness is acceptable, but structure could front-load the actual purpose.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is very incomplete. It omits details like what the tool acts on, parameters inside the JSON, and behavior. A typical GitHub API tool requires far more context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so description must explain the 'arguments' JSON. It merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'—no specifics on required keys (e.g., repo, pull_number, reviewers). This fails to add meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 states it is the 'request_reviewers' operation for GitHub, implying it requests reviewers. However, it fails to specify the target resource (e.g., pull request), leaving purpose somewhat vague. Distinguishable from siblings like 'github_remove_requested_reviewers' by name alone.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_submit_review, github_remove_requested_reviewers). No context about prerequisites (e.g., an open pull request). The description provides no usage direction.

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