runrunit_commits_branches_prs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool has no write side effects and that the caller must perform the follow-up invocation itself, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of describing the response shape or failure modes of routing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core routing function and the critical non-effect caveat. Every sentence changes how the agent should behave; nothing is 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?

For a single-enum-parameter router with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it does, what it does not do, and that the returned next_tool must be invoked by the caller. The one gap is that it never names the possible routing destinations, leaving the agent dependent on the runtime response.

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% and the sole parameter is an enum, so the schema already documents everything. The description merely restates the enum values, and its one clarifying note ('pr routes to the checklist') duplicates content already present in the schema's own description field.

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?

States a specific verb ('routes') and resource ('git workflow request') and explicitly negates the adjacent write operations ('Does not create branches, commits, or pull requests'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like runrunit_create_task_branch, runrunit_commit_per_file, and runrunit_create_pr_github.

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?

Makes the usage pattern explicit ('Call the returned next_tool yourself'), which tells the agent this is a dispatcher rather than a terminal action. It does not map each intent value to its destination tool, so the agent still has to discover the routing target from the response.

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