check_ci_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys that this is a status-checking operation and lists useful informational outputs, but it does not state read-only behavior, credential needs, platform expectations, or behavior when no build 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the relevant output details. There is no redundancy or wasted phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered outside the description, and the branch/platform defaults are represented in the input schema. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition lacks some behavioral and selection context that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only clarifies the platform via 'GitHub Actions' but does not explain repo format, branch usage, or the role of the platform parameter beyond its default. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 defines a concrete action, 'Check current build status', and a clear resource: GitHub Actions CI status. It also names the exact outputs returned: status, duration, log URL, and failed-step summary. None of the sibling tools covers CI status, so it is easily distinguishable.

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 text makes it clear the tool applies when checking current build status for GitHub Actions on a branch. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool handles CI build status, so the usage context is still clear.

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