create_pr

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

The description lacks detail on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It does not mention that creating a PR is a write operation, nor does it describe the dry_run parameter's behavior or any constraints. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is not verbose, but it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming lengthy.

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?

Despite having a complex input schema and sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain the purpose of parameters like 'dry_run' or the expected output. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but the description still lacks necessary context.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but does not enhance understanding. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new pull request' clearly states the verb and resource. It is unambiguous and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'merge_pull_request', which could be clarified for context.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a branch to exist, or when to choose other tools like 'create_issue' or 'merge_pull_request'.

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