ai.review_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool fetches the diff, commits, and description, which implies data access beyond the provided parameters. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, potential latency or cost, or any limitations on review scope.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a useful detail about fetched data. No filler or redundant content.

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?

With five parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics, especially 'focus' and 'max_files'. It also lacks guidance on when to use this tool over similar PR-related tools. The presence of an output schema helps but does not make up for these 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 schema has zero descriptions for parameters, and the description does not compensate. While owner, repo, and pull_number are self-explanatory by name, 'focus' and 'max_files' are left undefined. The description only hints at what data is fetched, not how parameters shape the review.

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 function with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('LLM code review on a pull request'). The parenthetical 'fetches the diff, commits, and description' adds useful scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like github.get_pr which only fetches PR metadata.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent should use this when an LLM code review is needed. However, there is no explicit comparison to ai.summarize_pr or guidance on when to choose one over the other, nor any stated alternatives or exclusions.

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