Collaborator: Get Reviews

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds that all parameters are optional, but lacks details on default behavior (e.g., all reviews if no filters), pagination, or limits.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, a toolset label, and a parameter list. However, the parameter list is redundant with the schema. Could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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?

All parameters are optional and described, and annotations confirm safety. But missing details on return format, sorting, pagination, or default behavior. With no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 100%; the description repeats parameter meanings already present in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieves reviews from Collaborator, specifying the underlying service and listing parameters. It is distinct from siblings like collaborator_find_review_by_id and collaborator_reject_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 notes that all parameters are optional, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like collaborator_find_review_by_id. No when-not or alternative tool suggestions are provided.

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