build_review_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait — deterministic output with no LLM verdict — but omits whether the tool is read-only, what permissions or auth are required, whether it mutates the repository, and what 'structured evidence' actually contains.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is too terse for a tool with three required parameters and a complex output schema, and it is not structured to front-load the tool's purpose or usage context.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still fails to provide purpose specifics, usage guidance, or parameter semantics in the absence of annotations and schema descriptions. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool over siblings.

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 description coverage is 0% for three required parameters (owner, repo, number), and the description adds no parameter details at all. An agent gets no help understanding expected formats or value meanings beyond the bare parameter names.

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 verb ('Build') and a vague resource ('deterministic structured evidence'), but never says what the evidence is for or that it relates to a pull request review report. The name and schema imply a PR context, but the description alone leaves the exact output ambiguous and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_pull_request or find_related_tests.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. The single sentence describes an implementation trait rather than routing the agent to this tool instead of another.

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