Get CI status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are for the latest commit (not historical runs), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior for PRs with no checks. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and scope ('CI result for a pull request's latest commit') before enumerating outputs. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete — return values need not be spelled out since an output schema exists, yet it summarizes them anyway. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance against sibling tools, which is a minor omission for this complexity level.

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 100% and both parameters (repo, number) are fully documented with pattern and range constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'a pull request' only loosely implies the number parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb (Returns) and a precisely scoped resource (the CI result for a pull request's latest commit). It enumerates the returned content — overall state, per-outcome counts, failing checks with link and summary — which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pull_request or list_pull_request_files.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. An agent can infer that this retrieves CI status for a PR, but nothing tells it to prefer this over get_pull_request for status questions or how it relates to the review-related siblings.

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