Agent identity

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool name comes from the MCP handshake and cannot be changed, and the label persists until the server process exits. This is consistent with the 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 two sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by essential constraints and one illustrative example. Every sentence adds necessary context without 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how the label behaves. A precise statement of the returned attribution fields would be marginally helpful, but the current description is sufficient for correct 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 schema provides no description for the 'label' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'label' is a short session handle, giving an example ('auth-refactor'), and clarifying its persistence and use case.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and a distinct resource ('how comments from this session will be attributed'), and also covers the optional 'set a label' behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from the CRUD repository/review/comment siblings.

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 gives clear context for when setting the label is worthwhile ('when more than one agent is working the same review') and notes the label's lifetime. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool, but no sibling alternative exists, so the guidance is adequate.

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