link_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what 'link' means operationally—whether it creates a log entry, updates a PR, or has side effects like sending notifications. There is no mention of required permissions, reversibility, or return behavior.

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 one terse sentence with no redundant wording, which is efficient. However, it is almost too sparse, lacking any structural breakdown that would help an agent parse requirements. Still, for conciseness it earns a high 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a successful link, what happens if the PR doesn't exist, or how the work log is affected. The description is markedly incomplete for this complexity.

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 low (17%), and the description adds no parameter explanations. The schema itself provides limited context (e.g., provider enum, repo format), but the description does not clarify how parameters like url, prNumber, or status should be used or relate to the linking operation.

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 states a clear action ('link') and resource ('pull request') with a specific destination ('this project's work log'). It is unambiguous and identifies the core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like log_work or record_decision.

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 no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without guidance on appropriate use cases.

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