Github List Pr Reviews

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: ordering is oldest first, each result includes author and verdict, and reviews are distinct from comments. This goes beyond annotation coverage without contradicting it, though it leaves external reference '#408' unexplained.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by a useful distinction and workflow note. Each sentence earns its place, though '#408' is a cryptic reference that may not help an agent.

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?

For a relatively simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, ordering, content, and the key sibling distinction. It also provides workflow guidance for interpreting results, making it complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 40%, with only page and per_page documented. The description does not compensate by explaining repo_owner, repo_name, or pr_number, even though those names are fairly standard. It does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Lists the reviews submitted on a pull request, oldest first, each with its author and verdict.' It clearly differentiates itself from github_list_pr_comments, so an agent can distinguish this tool from its nearest sibling without opening the 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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool (github_list_pr_comments) and explains when to use it instead: for line and thread comments, not approvals. It also gives a follow-up workflow, telling the agent to read requested_reviewers from github_get_pr_content to distinguish 'nobody reviewed' from 'nobody asked', and points to a skill for conventions.

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