Suggest reviewers

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are capped at three, returned as author emails, and ranked by frequency of recent changes in git history. It omits edge cases (e.g., what happens with a single-commit or new repo) and any relevant auth/permission notes, but for a read-only tool this is solid added context.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it ranks, followed by the intended use. Every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what it returns (up to three author emails), how results are ranked, and the intended scenario. With no output schema, the description adequately compensates by describing the return shape, and no essential information is missing.

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%, so both parameters (repoDir, paths) are already documented with format details ('absolute path to the git repository', 'repo-relative file paths'). The description does not extend parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('suggest up to three reviewers for a set of files') plus the ranking basis (recency-weighted git history) and the output unit (author emails). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like score_diff, explain_file_risk, and list_hotspots, which analyze risk rather than recommend people.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'Use it to pick human reviewers for a risky change.' That gives a clear context for invocation, but it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative approach, so it falls short of the 5-level when/when-not guidance.

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