suggest_reviewers

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

Discloses it automatically analyzes the working directory's Git repository, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or output format.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose then usage guidance.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential behavior and usage. Could mention that it requires a Git repo with changes, but not critical.

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% (limit parameter described). Description does not add meaning beyond schema; repeats the limit parameter indirectly but adds no extra semantics.

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?

Clearly states it suggests code reviewers based on Git history of modified files. Differentiates from sibling tools like create_pr or analyze_branch which have distinct purposes.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks who should review the PR or to suggest reviewers.' Provides clear usage context, though does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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