ready_to_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact review criteria, notable edge cases ("not because the tests were changed"), and expected output form (each check ✓ or ✗). It still does not state that the operation is read-only/side-effect free or what is returned when no session exists, so a gap remains.

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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then the check list, then parameter guidance — an efficient ordering. Slightly dense with a parenthetical aside ("force pushes, .env changes, recursive deletes…") but every sentence contributes.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the ✓/✗ check-by-check return structure, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. No annotations means safety/non-mutation behavior is unaddressed, keeping this just short of fully complete.

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 all three parameters are already documented with defaults and resolution rules. The description restates the `branch` use case and the newest-session default but adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific question it answers ("Is an agent session's work ready to merge?") and enumerates the concrete checks performed (tests after last change, no leftover failures, no risky operations, tested commit). It is clearly a readiness-verification tool, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like check_my_work or test_status, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives clear invocation context: pass `branch` to query a git branch ("is feat/login ready?"), otherwise default to the newest session in the project. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over check_my_work or test_status, so alternative selection is only implicit.

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