list_pull_request_reviews

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'List the reviews' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only status, pagination behavior, return format, or scope limitations (e.g., only top-level reviews, not comments). The docs link is helpful but not part of the descriptive narrative.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently captures the action, resource, and scope, followed by a relevant documentation link. No wasted words.

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 list endpoint, the description plus schema is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not explain return values, pagination mechanics, or exceptions. It is complete only at a basic level, missing context that would help an agent anticipate behavior.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. The schema already describes owner, repo, and pull_number, and page/per_page have defaults and ranges. With 60% schema coverage, the description neither compensates nor contradicts, resulting in a baseline of 3.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('reviews') plus scope ('on a GitHub pull request'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like list_pull_request_files or list_pull_request_commits.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when needing reviews on a specific PR), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This aligns with a score of 4: clear context, no exclusions.

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