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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent operation with no external side effects, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the 1-hour scope, the 12-hour branch fallback when nothing recent exists, and the fact that check results are included. Missing only secondary traits such as rate limits or ordering of results.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler, front-loading the scope and outcome, then the branch modifier, then the routing escape hatch. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of saying results carry outcome and checks, and all three optional parameters are documented in the schema. It is nearly complete, though it leaves the default result count and ordering unstated in prose (the default limit is only in the schema).

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends the meaning of `branch` by explaining that it widens the lookback to 12 hours when the branch has no recent pushes. That is behavior the schema's 'Only this branch' line does not convey.

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?

States exactly what is returned: pushes queued, running, or finished in the last hour, with their outcome and checks. It explicitly contrasts with the ci_history sibling, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule ('last hour') and an explicit when-NOT rule with the alternative named: 'For pushes that finished more than an hour ago, use ci_history.' It does not clarify the boundary with ci_queue, which also deals with queued pushes, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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