Review repository preparation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value-add is naming the payload contents (patch, warnings, digest) and the decision the read supports (owner authority vs. missing approval). It does not cover freshness, scoping, or what happens on an unknown/inaccessible preparation_id, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler; every clause carries workflow information. It is dense to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description names the returned artifacts and the decision context, which is adequate. It still leaves open how to source preparation_id and what 'digest' contains, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% and the description never mentions the single required preparation_id, where to obtain it, or what a 'preparation' represents. The schema's uuid format/pattern conveys type only; an agent gets no semantic guidance on the identifier that gates the entire call.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a concrete resource set ('owned pinned patch, warnings and digest'), which tells an agent this is the review/inspection step rather than the creation step performed by prepare_repository or create_preparation_pull_request. The jargon ('owned pinned patch', 'digest') is opaque but the operation is still distinguishable from siblings.

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 phrase 'before authorizing a PR within existing owner authority or requesting missing approval' places the call in a workflow, implying it is a prerequisite to authorize_publisher_task/create_preparation_pull_request. However, no sibling is named and no when-not-to-use or precondition (e.g. what to do if the preparation is stale) is given.

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