status

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

The description aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=true by stating 'Show', which is a read operation. It adds context about the categories displayed, but beyond that, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed. Since annotations already cover the read-only nature, the description's extra value is limited.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous text. It is front-loaded with the key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one boolean parameter with good schema description, readOnlyHint annotation, no output schema), the description sufficiently completes the picture. It tells what the tool shows, and the parameter is explained in the schema.

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 already describes the sole parameter 'offline' clearly with its description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Show' and specifies the resource as 'current PR tracking status' including specific categories like open PRs, shelved PRs, and dismissed issues. This clearly defines what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'track', 'shelve', and 'dismiss'.

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 for viewing overall tracking status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on when to use status vs search or other read tools.

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