mr_verify_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses read-only behavior, explains the join logic, defines the notion of 'addressed', and details the GitHub limitation regarding thread resolution. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. Each section (purpose, args, returns) earns its place. The returns block is detailed but necessary given the absence of an output schema, so there is no waste.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the algorithm, the return structure, platform differences, and the intended use case, leaving no meaningful gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully documents both parameters: url as 'Full merge/pull request URL' and window as 'Lines before/after the commented line to scan (default 40).' This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether each review thread was addressed by nearby diff changes.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like mr_review_status or mr_diff_lines by focusing on verification of thread resolution against diff context.

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 provides clear usage context: 'a fast re-review pass without re-reading the whole diff.' It also notes a platform-specific caveat for GitHub. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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