git_create_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dependency on gh CLI and safe-guards against common mistakes (same branch, main/master). However, it does not detail side effects like pushing the branch or the response format, though an output schema exists.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by well-structured conditions. Every sentence adds essential information without fluff.

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?

Given 4 parameters, all optional with schema descriptions, and an existing output schema, the description covers prerequisites, refusal logic, and default behaviors. It is largely complete, though it could mention that the PR is created on the remote after a push (implied but not explicit).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting defaults (e.g., 'Defaults to a generated summary' for body, 'branch name' for title) beyond the schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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 explicitly states 'Create a GitHub Pull Request from the current branch,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by specifying it uses GitHub CLI, and no sibling tool performs the same function.

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 clearly states prerequisites ('Requires GitHub CLI (gh) to be installed and authenticated') and refusal conditions ('Refuses to create PRs where head == base... or when the current branch is main/master'). This provides clear guidance on when to use and when not to use.

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