list_reviews

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 verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it disclose anything about pagination behavior, sorting, or what aspects of reviews are returned. This is a minimal disclosure that does not help the agent anticipate the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and earns its place with zero waste.

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 listing tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'review' entails, what fields will be in the response, or how pagination works beyond the schema hints. The description adds minimal value over the tool's name and schema, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 for all four parameters, so the schema already explains their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since the schema carries the weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No improvement or regression from the description is present.

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 'List reviews on a change request' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly scoping the tool to reviews for a particular change request. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_change_requests (which lists CRs) and submit_review (which submits a review), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 a clear context: use this tool when you need to retrieve reviews for a specific change request. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scoping is clear enough to guide selection among siblings like list_comments or list_requested_reviewers.

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