splithub_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a Pro feature, returns newest first, and should be treated as opinion, but it omits permissions, read-only nature, rate limits, and response shape.

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 front-loaded and mostly efficient, with no wasted sentences. The first sentence is dense but still readable and purposeful.

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 low-complexity retrieval tool, the description covers the nature and ordering of the reviews. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it stops short of describing the return structure or format.

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?

The single optional experiment parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-all behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource as AI reviews for an experiment and explains the contexts in which those reviews are generated. It distinguishes the reviews from the verdict/status by stating the verdict remains the source of truth, though it does not use an explicit retrieval verb.

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 gives important interpretive guidance: quote reviews as opinion and treat the verdict as authoritative. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like splithub_status or splithub_results.

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