list_unresolved_review_threads

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden: it discloses that only unresolved threads are returned, describes the returned thread structure (node ID, file path, line number, comments), and names the continuation tool. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or error conditions, but is transparent about the filtering behavior.

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?

Extremely concise – two short paragraphs plus a terse Args list. The key behavior (only unresolved) is front-loaded. No redundant or off-topic sentences. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 3 simple required parameters, an output schema existing, and fully transparent behavior, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the filtering, the thread structure, and the follow-up tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description includes a concise Args section that defines each parameter (owner, repo, pr_number) beyond their names and types, providing clear purpose. The schema only has names and types, so the description adds critical meaning.

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?

Clearly states it lists unresolved inline review threads on a pull request, specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'unresolved inline review threads', and distinguishing it from general comment listing or resolution tools.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (to see what still needs attention) and references the sibling tool resolve_review_thread as the next step. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, such as for resolved threads or non-inline comments.

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