get_pull_request_statuses

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the tool's action ('Get') without disclosing any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions, or whether it returns only the latest statuses. The description adds almost no information beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides little additional semantic value, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient. Still, it lacks any context about how build statuses relate to other tools like get_pipelines, or any caveats about when to use it. The absence of annotations and guidance makes it merely adequate.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'a pull request' which loosely connects to the pull_request_id parameter, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's role, constraints, or usage. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds minimal value.

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 action (Get) and the specific resource (build statuses of a pull request). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_pull_request or get_pull_request_diff because 'build statuses' is a unique resource among the sibling names.

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 usage: if you need build statuses for a pull request, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., get_pipelines) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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