is_pull_merged

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

The description explains the return value (boolean) and the meaning of true/false, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the context ('Check', 'confirm') strongly suggests no side effects. For a simple check tool, this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the return value and usage scenarios. Without an output schema, it explains the boolean result. It is complete for a simple check tool, though it omits error handling or what happens if the PR doesn't exist.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('pull request'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pull_request by focusing solely on merge status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: before merge_pull_request to avoid redundant attempts or to confirm final state. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the given scenarios are clear and actionable.

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