check_mergeability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what it returns (e.g., a boolean or detailed report), or how it handles non-clean merges. The lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap.

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, direct sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous content. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, giving the agent immediate clarity.

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 check with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, possible outcomes (e.g., clean vs. conflict), or any preconditions (e.g., whether the change must be in a particular state). An agent would lack essential context to interpret the result correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter change_id, and the description does not explicitly explain that it identifies the Change Request to check. The parameter name is self-explanatory in context, but the description adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema's field name, failing to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 states a specific verb (check), a resource (a Change Request), and the context (merge into default branch). It distinguishes from siblings like merge_change (which performs the merge) and get_conflicts (which likely returns conflict details), making the tool's intent unambiguous.

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 such as get_conflicts or merge_change. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked (e.g., before attempting a merge) or scenarios where a different tool is more appropriate.

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