show_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool 'Blocks until the narration finishes speaking' and that it presents a visual card with a spoken caption. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state, requires a selected PR, works independently of a tour, or returns a value), leaving agent-relevant behavior under-specified.

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 front-loaded with the intent, includes the blocking trait, and adds a concrete usage constraint in three sentences. No redundant content or filler; every sentence contributes to understanding or using the tool.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior and parameter constraints. But it leaves out contextual prerequisites and interactions with sibling tour tools: whether an active PR must be loaded, whether this is a tour step, or whether it requires an active tour context. Since the sibling list suggests a tour workflow, this information is useful for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by adding meaning to both parameters: 'narration' is explained as a spoken caption, with a length constraint ('1-3 short, plain-language sentences'), and 'key_points' is clarified as 'optional short bullet' content, suggesting a visual bulleted list beyond the raw schema's 'array of strings'.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Show the PR overview card' with the exact fields ('title, author, +/- stats, file count'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_pr_info (which retrieves data) and show_step (which shows tour steps) by emphasizing the narrated spoken caption and blocking behavior.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling tools. It doesn't mention when to choose show_overview over get_pr_info or show_step, and no exclusions or preconditions are provided. The only usage constraint ('Keep narration to 1-3 short, plain-language sentences') concerns content format, not tool selection.

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