check_mergeability

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

No annotations are provided, so the full behavioral burden rests on the description. Yet the description does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it performs any computation on the branch, what the return value looks like, or whether it can have side effects. 'Check' suggests a safe query but never says so.

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 clear sentence that fronts the operation immediately. It is short, substantive, and contains no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

For a single-parameter predicate, this is minimally viable: it tells the agent what is being checked and against what. But the absent output schema, absent annotations, and missing return-value/behavioral details leave an agent guessing at the expected response and side-effect profile.

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 the tool description does not explain what change_id is or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description itself adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('check whether') and a specific resource ('Change Request'), along with the target context ('project's default branch'). It is clearly differentiated from siblings like merge_change and get_conflicts because it asks about mergeability rather than performing or resolving a merge.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to know whether a Change Request will merge cleanly. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools such as get_conflicts or merge_change, so the agent has to infer the conditional context.

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