get_pull_request_checks_tool

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

The description discloses that it combines two sources into a summary with overall state and per-check conclusions. No annotations exist, but the description sufficiently covers the behavior for a read-only operation. It could explicitly state it's a read operation.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the purpose and composition of the summary. No redundant information; front-loaded with the main action.

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, 3 parameters (2 required), and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter names and types. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 that the tool retrieves a combined CI status summary for a GitHub pull request, combining check-runs and legacy commit status. This is distinct from siblings like get_pull_request_tool, which focuses on PR metadata.

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 obtaining CI status, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. get_pull_request_tool which might also include status). 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.