triage_prs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the filtering criteria (correct base, not stale) and mentions graph impact data. However, it doesn't define 'actionable' or 'stale' precisely, nor does it disclose any side effects, rate limits, or output structure details.

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 consists of two sentences: first sentence states purpose and value, second sentence gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler.

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?

The description lacks output schema, so it should provide more detail on the return value. While it mentions 'full graph impact data' and reasoning use cases, it does not specify the structure or fields included, leaving the agent partially informed.

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%, so the schema already describes all three parameters (base, repo, project_path) with clear defaults. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('return') and a clear resource ('actionable open PRs with graph impact data'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_prs (raw list) and get_pr_impact (single PR) by emphasizing triage and priority reasoning.

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 states when to call the tool ('when user asks what PRs to review or what's ready to merge'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling alternatives to choose.

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