pr_review_dashboard

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

The description indicates the tool is a read operation ('show') and provides output structure (grouped by status with wait times). However, with no annotations, it lacks details on data freshness, caching, or permissions. It meets basic needs but leaves 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, well-front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing outputs), but it is efficiently concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists) and no annotations, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it omits details about 'wait times' calculation and handling of large repositories, which would be helpful for a complete context.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description was expected to explain parameters. It does not mention 'owner' or 'repo' at all. While these are common, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself lacks descriptions.

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: showing open PRs grouped by review status with wait times. It uses specific verbs and resource, and the grouping by three statuses (awaiting, changes requested, approved) distinguishes it from sibling tools like pr_check_status (which checks individual PRs) or stale_pr_report.

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 implies usage for an overview of PR review progress, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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