start_tour

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses side effects (opens viewer in browser, replaces previous tour, enables audio on Start), a blocking condition (~30s wait for user), and the fetch step. This is unusually transparent.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. Each clause carries operational information: fetch, open viewer, block, replace, and prerequisite call.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers side effects, blocking behavior, and sequencing. It doesn't describe return values, errors, or what happens after Start, but those are likely secondary for an agent deciding whether and when to call this tool.

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 only gives parameter names/types, so the description must add meaning. pr_url is implied by 'Fetches the PR,' and tour_title is loosely tied to 'shows a title/start screen,' but the description never explicitly maps tour_title to the displayed title. Coverage is adequate but not explicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start an animated tour of the pull request.' It then details the concrete workflow (fetch PR, open viewer, show start screen), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like show_overview or get_pr_info.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call get_pr_info first so you can plan your steps.' This is a clear prerequisite and sequencing instruction, though it does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools.

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