get_commit_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Returns: List of CI/CD statuses' but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior (only mentions a default limit). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and detailed return format. It's minimally adequate for a read operation but incomplete for reliable use, as it doesn't address key invocation aspects like authentication or rate limits.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists all three parameters (repo_slug, commit, limit) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., commit hash length, repo_slug structure) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get build/CI statuses') and resource ('for a commit'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_commit (which retrieves commit details) or get_pipeline (which retrieves pipeline information). The verb 'Get' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like get_pipeline (which might provide related CI/CD data).

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