check_prs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions the revenue-tracking purpose but fails to disclose side effects, return format/pagination, authentication requirements, or what criteria determine 'might earn money'.

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?

Extremely tight single sentence structure. Front-loaded with action ('Check status'), followed by scope and purpose ('track which ones might earn money'). No redundant words or repetition of structured metadata.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter tool but gaps remain. Given no output schema, the description should hint at return structure (list? count?). The 'across repos' scope mechanism is unexplained, though the revenue connection to sibling tools is appropriately noted.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (vacuously true). With no parameters to describe, this meets the baseline score of 4 as defined in the evaluation rules.

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?

Clear verb ('Check') + resource ('open PRs') + scope ('across repos') and distinguishes from bounty-focused siblings by mentioning the PR context. However, 'across repos' is ambiguous given zero parameters (which repos?), and 'Check status' is slightly generic.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'find_bounties' or 'scan_bounty'. The phrase 'track which ones might earn money' implies revenue-tracking use case but doesn't state prerequisites or when to prefer this over other revenue tools.

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