Get Pull Request Checks Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does add real value: it discloses the classification scheme (passed/failing/pending/skipped), the critical semantic that SKIPPED is not a failure, and the exact truth conditions for ready_to_merge (including the known-unmergeable case). It stops short of stating auth requirements or rate-limit/read-only behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core verdict statement followed by classification and output semantics. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor redundancy is restating the ready_to_merge semantics alongside an existing output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description usefully clarifies the one ambiguous field (ready_to_merge). Combined with full parameter coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the only gap is the absence of any read-only/safety statement given there are no annotations.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema (repo, owner with default, pull_number), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as accepted repo formats or owner defaulting behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get a CI verdict for a PR) with a distinguishing scope: it separates skipped from failed and aggregates all check-runs plus commit-status contexts. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_pull_request_tool, which would not surface a CI verdict.

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 gives output-side guidance (use ready_to_merge as the merge-clearance signal), which implies the use case, but never states when to pick this over get_pull_request_tool or the workflow-run tools, and names no alternatives or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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