github.ci_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the phrase 'check runs + combined commit status' explicitly states what data is returned. It does not mention authentication requirements or edge cases, but for a read-only getter this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose, target scope, and included data types in under 20 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered by structured data. The description provides the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and the target types. It omits edge cases like providing both pull_number and ref, but given the schema coverage, the description is largely 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?

The description adds semantic meaning by clarifying that the tool works 'for a PR or a commit ref', which maps to the optional pull_number and ref parameters. However, it does not explain that owner/repo are required, nor does it address the relationship between pull_number and ref (e.g., mutual exclusivity). With 0% schema coverage, this is only partial compensation.

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 operation ('Get CI status') and the specific resource ('check runs + combined commit status') with a defined scope ('for a PR or a commit ref'). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like github.get_pr, which fetches PR details, and github.list_issues, which lists issues.

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 provides clear usage context by specifying two target types: PR or commit ref. Although it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X', the scope is precise enough for an agent to select this tool when CI status is needed.

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