Quality Gate Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by detailing what is evaluated in each mode (CI, reviews, policy, labels, mergeability) and what is returned (evidence packet, blockers, warnings, next actions, conservative conclusion). No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, with the purpose stated first, followed by a structured list of parameters and return value. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (two modes, five parameters, output schema), the description covers the key behavioral differences and output structure. It could mention that sibling tools exist for related checks, but it stands alone adequately.

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%, and the description largely repeats schema info (e.g., blockingLabels default, case-insensitivity). It adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool evaluates real merge-gate evidence for a PR or CI evidence for a git ref. It distinguishes between two modes (PR vs ref) and contrasts with sibling tools like branch_protection_status and release_readiness_check.

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 explicitly explains when to use pullNumber (preferred, evaluates more checks) vs ref (CI only) and how to disable blocking labels. However, it does not compare with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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