Get pull request review eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'performs no review write and never mints a reviewer installation token.' It also specifies the 'exact-head' constraint and 'advisory' nature, going beyond what annotations convey about token and side-effect behavior.

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 sentences, with the key phrase 'Read-only exact-head preflight' front-loaded. Every clause adds either functional output details or explicit non-behavior, with no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return entities (author, identities, eligibility flags) and the key constraints (read-only, no token minting, exact SHA). It explains what to expect and what not to expect, making it complete without needing to detail output schemas or pagination.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the importance of expected_head_sha via 'exact-head preflight', but this does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. Hence, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb "report" with a clear resource: pull-request review eligibility. It enumerates the exact outputs (author, ordinary GitHub identity, configured reviewer identity, eligibility of APPROVED/COMMENTED reviews), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gh_get_pr_review_state or gh_approve_pr by emphasizing it is a read-only preflight that performs no writes.

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 clearly frames this as a "preflight" advisory call, implying it should be used before attempting a review write. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use gh_approve_pr to approve'), but the read-only advisory nature provides strong contextual guidance, so it misses the highest bar only for lacking explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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