Durable merge shepherd for agent PRs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this is a read-only report, whether permissions are required, how fresh the aggregation is, or what period is covered by the aging.

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?

It is extremely short with no wasted words, but it reads as a terse fragment rather than a front-loaded statement, and the density comes at the cost of unclear terminology rather than efficient structure.

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 and no annotations, the description should at least describe the returned report. It partially does (count, cause, aging), but omits the period covered, the freshness, and the meaning of 'giveup', leaving real gaps for an agent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'by cause' and 'aged' hints at grouping dimensions, but with no parameters there is little more it could add.

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 fragment names a report and its dimensions (approved-but-not-merged count, by cause, aged), so the agent gets a rough idea of the resource. But the key term 'giveup' is never defined, 'for the operator' is opaque jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings register_approval or verdict_lookup.

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 only contextual signal is the audience phrase 'for the operator'; there is no statement of when to call this report versus register_approval or verdict_lookup, and no prerequisites or trigger conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a persistent registration side effect via "durable shepherding" but says nothing about required permissions, idempotency/duplicate handling, or what happens to the approval record afterwards — major gaps for a state-mutating 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?

It is a single compact sentence with no padding, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity — the parenthetical and "durable shepherding" consume space without conveying actionable meaning.

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 three-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain prerequisites, effects, and parameter sourcing. None of that is present, leaving the agent materially under-informed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing about repo, number, or approval_id. The description only weakly implies that repo/number identify the PR and that approval_id comes from a prior approval; it gives no format, source, or constraint for any of the three required 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 verb+resource is present ("register an approved PR"), so an agent can tell it's a write/registration action on a pull request. However, "durable shepherding" and "(trial/plan/metered per operator)" are unexplained jargon that obscure the actual effect, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings giveup_report or verdict_lookup.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used, what prerequisite state is required (e.g., that an approval must already exist), or how it relates to giveup_report and verdict_lookup. Usage is only implied by the phrase "approved PR".

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the payment model (x402 $0.01) and owner API-key path, which are meaningful behavioral details. However, it does not state that the lookup is read-only, what 'signed' entails, failure behavior, or return 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?

One sentence with no wasted words and the payment/auth qualifier is compact. It is concise but somewhat cryptic rather than fully front-loaded.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the returned verdict and job_id semantics. It covers cost/auth but leaves too much for an agent to infer.

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 only parameter, job_id, is never mentioned in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. Because the description adds no meaning to job_id, it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States the resource ('Signed verdict for a shepherded approval') but omits an explicit retrieval verb and never distinguishes itself from giveup_report or register_approval. An agent can infer it fetches a verdict, but differentiation relies on the tool name rather than the description.

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?

Mentions cost/auth for owner vs non-owner lookups, which is useful context, but gives no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance relative to the sibling approval tools.

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