status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds moderate value by specifying the categories of status shown, but does not disclose any further behavioral nuances (e.g., caching behavior beyond the offline parameter, data freshness).

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 directly states the tool's purpose and key items. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only query tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and scope. However, it could provide more detail on how the status is structured or returned, and it does not clarify how the offline parameter interacts with the described output.

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 the single boolean parameter 'offline' with a clear description. The tool-level description does not mention the parameter nor add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current PR tracking status'), and details the exact items included (open PRs, shelved PRs, dismissed issues). This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling action tools like track or shelve.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search, track, or shelve. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with siblings.

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