pr_check_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions aggregation and quick overview but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a tool with no annotations, more detail is needed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 an output schema, return details are not needed. The description covers the basic functionality for a simple two-parameter tool. It could mention what 'check status' entails more precisely, but it is mostly complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain what 'owner' and 'repo' mean beyond their names. It adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 action ('aggregate CI/check status'), the resource ('all open PRs'), and the purpose ('quick 'is anything red' overview'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pr_review_dashboard which focus on reviews rather than CI 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 implies usage as a quick overview ('quick 'is anything red' overview') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like pr_review_dashboard. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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