get_pr_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only lists output fields and says nothing about read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or side effects; the verb 'get' in the name implies safe reading, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 extremely short with no wasted words, but its structure is cryptic. Leading with 'Extended:' does not front-load a clear action or purpose, and the fragment omits essential context that a selection decision would need.

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 read tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what is returned and when it is preferable to siblings. It hints at returned components but leaves the usage context and precise return shape incomplete.

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 100%, and the single prUrl parameter is already documented as 'PR URL' in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives no clear verb or resource, only fragmentary output hints ('checks + review decision + counts'). 'Extended' is ambiguous and does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling get_pr tool, though the word suggests a richer status payload. An agent can guess the purpose from the name but not from the description alone.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus get_pr, get_pr_diff, or any other sibling. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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