Ask a Capy thread to open a pull request

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

Annotations are present and the description adds context about asynchronous behavior (PR not existing on return) and the need to poll. No contradictions with annotations; useful behavioral disclosure beyond read/safety hints.

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?

Three sentences: first states the action, second explains mechanism, third gives post-call guidance. Front-loaded and 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?

No output schema, so description should cover return value. It mentions 'report any PRs on the thread' and polling, but does not specify what the immediate response contains (e.g., thread id or status). Adequate but has a gap.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds example values and clarifies that instructions can include title, base branch, or draft status, providing additional meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool asks an agent in a thread to commit work and open a pull request, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like capy_message and capy_wait.

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 explains it is a convenience wrapper around capy_message and that the PR is not created immediately, advising to call capy_wait or capy_status afterwards. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but provides clear usage context.

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