get_commit_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an authentication requirement ('Requires Commit statuses: read') and the legacy/combined nature of the data, which are useful behavioral traits. It does not describe rate limits or error behavior, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get' and the permission.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the permission requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, acceptable ref values, and required permission. It could mention a non-mutating guarantee explicitly, but 'Get' and the read permission make that sufficiently clear.

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 0%, so the description's clarification that ref accepts 'a SHA, branch, or tag' adds real value beyond schema property names. Owner and repo are standard and self-explanatory from their names, so the partial compensation is adequate.

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?

Description opens with action verb 'Get,' identifies specific resource ('combined legacy commit-status contexts'), and scopes inputs to SHA/branch/tag. This clearly differentiates from siblings like list_commits or get_pull_request.

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 implies the tool's use case—retrieving combined commit statuses for a ref—and notes the required permission. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternative tools or mention exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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