request_reviewers

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

The description simply states the action without any mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether existing reviewers are overwritten. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails to do so.

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 sentence with a docs link, front-loading the action. It is appropriately concise, with no redundant information.

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?

The tool is moderately simple: five parameters, no output schema, no annotations. The description provides the basic purpose and a docs link, but lacks operational details such as the requirement that at least one reviewer list be specified or potential API limitations. However, given the schema's completeness, it reaches a minimal viable level.

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 input schema has full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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: requesting reviewers for a GitHub pull request. It uses a specific verb ('request') and resource, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_pull_request_review or list_pull_request_reviews.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that at least one of reviewers/team_reviewers should be provided, nor does it differentiate from other PR-related operations.

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