jules_review_pr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. Words like 'Inspect', 'review', and 'pulls ... via gh' convey a non-mutating fetch operation and identify the underlying mechanism. It does not fully document auth requirements or error behavior, but these are minor for a read-only PR inspection tool.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence uses a colon list to convey the tool's scope and data sources. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 two-parameter, read-only review tool with no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to choose and invoke it correctly. It states what data will be gathered, implies non-mutation, and the schema covers parameter meaning.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the nuance that repo is required when only a PR number is passed. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it earns the baseline 3 for a well-covered schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Inspect and review a GitHub PR') and enumerates exactly what is gathered: PR metadata, review comments, diff stats, and CI status checks. This clearly differentiates it from mutating siblings like jules_merge_pr and jules_rebase_pr.

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 establishes a clear use context: reviewing/inspecting a GitHub PR created by Google Jules. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended selection scenario is evident enough.

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