check_operational_integrity

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the evaluation scope (repo state safety for four operation types), going beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose without extraneous information. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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?

While the description is clear, it lacks information about the output/return value (no output schema). For a read-only evaluation tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what the result looks like (e.g., boolean, status object). Given complexity and sibling tools, slightly more detail would be helpful.

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 each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Evaluate' and resource 'repo state', clearly indicating it checks safety for PR, merge, release, and publish operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_protected_action (approval) and get_branch_governance (retrieving rules).

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 implies usage before PR, merge, release, or publish operations to assess safety. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance. Still, it effectively directs when this tool should be employed.

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