haops_review_merge_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the verdicts and auto-transition, but lacks details on idempotency, permissions, whether reviews can be overwritten, or the return format. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, verdict options, and a key behavioral aspect (auto-transition). It lacks information on permissions or error states, but for a review action, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds meaning by explaining the verdict values and their effect (auto-transition), which provides context beyond the enum listing. However, it does not add specific details to other parameters like body or verbose.

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 states 'Submit a review on a merge request' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the three verdicts and mentions auto-transition behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like merge, close, reopen, and get.

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 description explains when the tool is used (submitting a review) and notes that when enough approvals are met, the MR status auto-transitions to approved. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear for a review action.

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