get_pr_review_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool detects stale approvals and aggregates PR details, votes, and commits. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only operation, this is acceptable. The Args list adds transparency about parameters. A score of 4 is appropriate given the lack of annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for the purpose and an Args list. It is front-loaded with the key value proposition. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 complexity (comprehensive review status) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool retrieves: PR details, votes, commits, and stale approvals. It does not mention error handling or limitations, but for a read tool, this is sufficient. A score of 4 reflects good coverage without unnecessary details.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'pr_id' as 'Pull request ID' and 'working_directory' as 'Optional path for context resolution,' adding meaning beyond the bare schema types. This is good, but could be more detailed (e.g., expected format for working_directory).

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 purpose: 'Get comprehensive review status with vote invalidation detection.' It specifies fetching PR details, reviewer votes, commit history, and stale approvals. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pull_request (basic PR info) and analyze_pending_reviews.

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 implies this tool is for deeper analysis than basic PR status, mentioning 'stale approvals that the raw API buries.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request or analyze_pending_reviews, leaving the agent without clear guidance.

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