Review Bottlenecks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it limits scope to open non-draft MRs, explains grouping and unassigned handling, and describes the return structure. This provides valuable transparency for an agent.

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-loading the main purpose and then summarizing outputs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates key return elements. Parameters are fully documented. The tool's behavior is sufficiently described for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A minor gap is the absence of example usage, but the combination of schema and description is nearly complete.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., group vs project mutual exclusivity, staleAfterDays default, maxMRs cap). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('surface review bottlenecks') and clearly identifies the resource (open non-draft MRs aggregated across a group or project). It enumerates specific outputs (per-reviewer queue stats, age-bucket histogram, stalest MRs), distinguishing it from sibling analytics tools like analytics_group_summary which provide different summaries.

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 implies usage for review bottlenecks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_merge_requests or other analytics tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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