roast_pr

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. While 'roast' suggests some form of critique or analysis, the description doesn't explain what the tool actually does operationally, what permissions are required, whether it's read-only or has side effects, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance with parameter examples, and every sentence earns its place. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a tool with no annotations and a single parameter, the description should do more to explain what 'roast' means operationally and any behavioral characteristics. The parameter explanation is adequate but the overall behavioral context is insufficient.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'pr' parameter with examples of valid formats ('123', 'owner/repo#123', or full GitHub URL). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain constraints like maximum length, validation rules, or what happens with invalid formats.

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: 'Roast a pull request' with the verb 'roast' and resource 'pull request'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'roast_my_prs' by specifying this tool requires a PR reference while the sibling suggests working with multiple PRs. However, it doesn't fully explain what 'roast' means operationally.

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 context for when to use this tool by specifying the required PR reference format and showing examples. It distinguishes from the sibling 'roast_my_prs' by implication (this requires a specific PR reference while the sibling likely works with the user's PRs). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide explicit alternatives.

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