list_reviewers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return content (reviewers, CC'd users, removed reviewers, approval status) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor any error handling or authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves some 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only the essential output details. No unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It does not detail the exact return structure, but the listing of reviewer categories is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected result.

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% for the single parameter change_id, which already documents the accepted formats. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 action ('List all reviewers of a Gerrit change') and the specific resource (reviewers). It also distinguishes the output categories (reviewers, CC'd users, removed reviewers) which are unique among sibling tools like add_reviewer or list_change_comments.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to see the reviewers of a change. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed.

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