copilot_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] code review and improvement suggestions,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it modifies data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence: 'Get code review and improvement suggestions from GitHub Copilot.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., structured feedback, suggestions list), potential errors, or behavioral traits like response format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (code, language, reviewType) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get code review and improvement suggestions from GitHub Copilot.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('code review and improvement suggestions'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on review rather than chat, explanation, or suggestion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'copilot_suggest' which might overlap in providing suggestions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (copilot_chat, copilot_explain, copilot_suggest) or specify scenarios where this review tool is preferred over others, such as for security checks versus general coding help. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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