Collect Git/CI context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals best-effort behavior ('Best-effort — missing pieces are omitted') and the use of local git/gh, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the output structure, potential failure modes, or whether network access is required, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. Each sentence adds functional value: the first states what it gathers, the second provides usage context and reliability caveat.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it gathers, when to call it, and its best-effort behavior. It lacks a precise output contract, but the enumerated content and merge instruction provide adequate context for an agent.

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% and already fully explains baseRef with its default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Gather') and clearly enumerates the resource ('real diff stat, commits, PR state, and CI checks') and source ('local repo'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly linking to alabasta_submit_task_resolution as a pre-submission step.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call before submitting and merge the result into alabasta_submit_task_resolution.' This establishes workflow context without formally excluding alternatives, but no competing tool exists for this purpose.

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