list_pull_request_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining pagination semantics, the page_size range, the raw flag's effect, and the normalized page-mapping return shape. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or discuss auth/rate limits, but 'List' and the return description make the non-mutating nature sufficiently clear.

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-organized and efficient: a one-line summary, an Args list with one line per parameter, a Returns note, and a concrete example. Every sentence or line adds useful information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 straightforward list operation with an output schema and six parameters, the description is complete enough: it documents all required and optional parameters, clarifies raw behavior and pagination, and provides an example. It could be more complete by naming alternatives or noting any provider-specific caveats, but nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Because schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it does. Every parameter receives a meaningful explanation beyond the schema's titles and types: page is 'One-based,' page_size is bounded 'from 1 through 100,' and raw is defined as 'Include provider payloads.' The example also gives concrete context for the repo and pull_request_id format.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'List reviews attached to a pull request.' This makes the tool's function immediately understandable and distinguishes it from the sibling tools by focusing on reviews rather than comments or diffs. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with list_pull_request_comments or other alternatives, so it lacks the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implied by the resource: an agent needing to list reviews on a pull request should use this tool. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over list_pull_request_comments or other review-related operations, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but relies on the agent inferring the use case from the purpose statement.

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