suggest_reviewers_for_cl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it analyzes OWNERS files and recent commit activity, suggests a minimal set of reviewers, and ranks them by coverage and activity. However, it lacks details on performance characteristics (e.g., timeouts), error handling, or output format, which would be helpful for an agent to anticipate results.

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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and methods, and the second elaborates on the ranking criteria. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's functionality.

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 (analyzing CLs and suggesting reviewers) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description does a good job of covering the core behavior and purpose. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., what data is returned) and potential limitations (e.g., handling of large CLs), which would improve completeness for agent invocation.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional context (e.g., how 'fast' mode affects accuracy). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 with specific verbs ('find', 'analyzes', 'suggest') and resources ('optimal reviewers for a Chromium CL'), explicitly mentioning the analysis methods (OWNERS files and recent commit activity) and the goal (minimal set of reviewers covering all changed files). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_gerrit_cl_status' or 'search_chromium_commits' by focusing on reviewer recommendation rather than status checking or searching.

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 usage context by specifying 'for a Chromium CL' and mentions analysis methods, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_chromium_owners_file' or 'get_gerrit_cl_comments'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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