df_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a PR/MR, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, whether it pushes the branch, or what happens if a PR already exists.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, target platform, and branch scope.

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 creation tool with complete schema descriptions, the description is largely sufficient. It covers what is created and for which branch, though it does omit some contextual details about preconditions and side effects.

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 the title and body parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Crear... Pull Request o Merge Request') and a clear scope ('para la rama actual'). It unambiguously identifies the resource being acted on and is distinct from siblings like df_merge or df_push.

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 is appropriate when the current branch is ready for a PR/MR, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or preconditions such as needing a remote branch or avoiding duplicate PRs.

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