Get pull request reviewers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action and result but does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any potential errors, side effects, or prerequisites. While 'List' implies a non-destructive read, the lack of explicit behavioral context is a notable gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey return structure. It states the tool 'List[s] pull request reviewers and their current votes,' which implies a list of reviewer objects with vote information, but it does not specify the exact shape or any edge cases (e.g., no reviewers, error handling). For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (project, repositoryId, pullRequestId). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'pull request reviewers' with the additional detail 'their current votes,' which precisely defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_pull_request_reviewer or get_pull_request. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use it (when you need reviewer information), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. There is no guidance on choosing this over related tools such as get_pull_request_review_context or manage_pull_request_reviewer. The usage context is inferable but not explicitly stated.

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