request_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses idempotency/duplicate-refusal behavior, billing semantics ("not charged twice"), and that the answer is passed back unchanged. It does not cover permissions or failure modes beyond the duplicate case, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter notes, then return and timing behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter remarks and the closing operational note make it slightly denser than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return semantics (answer unchanged), the billing/duplicate behavior, and default resolution for optional inputs. It leaves auth requirements and the meaning of tier values unstated, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: repo format is given as "owner/name" or a bare name resolved against the key's organization, and tier/addons are marked optional with their default resolution (the repository's own settings). It never enumerates valid tier values or addon names, leaving part of the surface undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: ask MergeSafe to review the current head of a pull request. That is plainly distinct from the siblings get_findings, reply, and report_reproduction, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

"Call it after pushing fixes" gives a clear trigger, and "a head that was already reviewed is refused, not charged twice" states a when-not condition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the already-reviewed case, so it is strong context rather than explicit routing.

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