Get Copilot Code Reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape (review state enum values and file-level comments with paths and line numbers), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no review exists.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then return contents, then usage. No filler, though the journal-entry/tag prescription is a narrow workflow hint that consumes space an alternate-use note could have occupied.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully described, and the description still summarizes them helpfully. With 0 required parameters, mostly documented inputs, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 75%, so most parameters are self-documenting, including 'LEAVE EMPTY to auto-detect from git' for repo/owner. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and is silent on pr_number formatting and the undocumented use_test_db parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get Copilot's code review findings for a pull request') and the scope of what comes back. It is clearly distinguished from nearby GitHub siblings such as get_github_pr or get_github_prs by naming the Copilot review artifact specifically, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

Gives an explicit usage context: learn from Copilot's review patterns and turn findings into journal entries tagged 'copilot-finding'. That is clear guidance for when to reach for it, but it names no alternatives and no conditions under which not to use it.

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