createPRViaGittrCLI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions 'full flow including git push', which is a key mutating behavior beyond just creating a PR. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, failure modes, or reversibility, leaving transparency incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence that captures the essential purpose and key behavioral detail (full flow with git push). Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., PR URL), what the 'full flow' entails in detail, prerequisites like credentials, or how it handles errors. The recommendation is helpful but does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, each with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, as it only mentions the CLI and push flow but does not explain parameters like privkey, repo, or branches.

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 creates a pull request via the gittr CLI and includes the full flow with git push, distinguishing it from the sibling createPR tool. The use of 'RECOMMENDED' adds a preference but does not explicitly name the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 an explicit recommendation ('RECOMMENDED for PRs') and indicates the full flow includes git push, which implies this tool is the preferred choice for PR creation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it lacks exclusivity guidance.

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