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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the sorting order and single-repo scope, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, what a 'review' includes, pagination, or error behavior. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise sentence that directly states what the tool does and the ordering. There is zero wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not explain the return format, whether ratings/text are included, how 'recent' is defined, or any pagination details. The agent would need to guess or discover these behaviors, making the description incomplete for a list-type 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'limit' has a description). The description does not explain the roles of 'platform', 'owner', and 'name' beyond implying they identify a repo. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the tool name and schema property 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 uses a specific verb ('reviews') and resource ('one repo') with scope ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_repo, get_wiki, and search_repos, which serve different purposes.

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 usage context is implied: to get reviews for a specific repo. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are distinct enough that the intended use is fairly clear, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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