pr_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions that the result includes mergeability and CI linkage, which is useful, but it does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether authentication or PR existence is required, or what happens if the PR index is invalid.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Its brevity is structurally clean, though it borders on being too terse for the information an agent needs.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is incomplete for a tool that takes two undocumented required parameters. It gives only a partial sense of return contents and omits parameter meaning, error behavior, and read-operation assumptions.

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% and both required parameters ('repo' and 'index') are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate at all by explaining what 'repo' expects or that 'index' identifies the pull request.

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 ('Get') and resource ('pull request state') and names two pieces of returned state ('mergeable, CI linkage'). It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like pr_merge and pr_open, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 given about when to call this versus reading CI runs directly via ci_runs or checking a PR before merging via pr_merge. The read-only intent is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly framed.

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