Get Pull Request Checks Tool

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure and does so well. It explains classification categories, that skipped checks are not failures, the semantics of ready_to_merge, and the important token-scope limitation where check-run access may fall back to Actions jobs with checks_source indicating the source.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only high-value behavioral details: classification rules, skipped handling, ready_to_merge semantics, and token fallback. It is dense but appropriately sized for a tool with meaningful auth and output nuances.

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 output schema, readOnly annotation, and fully described parameters, the description supplies the remaining critical context an agent needs. It covers the return signal, skipped-check semantics, and token-related visibility limitations, making the definition complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, so repo, owner, and pull_number are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage but does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get a CI verdict for a PR, with classification of check-runs and commit-status contexts. It is clearly distinct from sibling PR tools and workflow-run tools because it focuses on merge-readiness checks, including the skipped-vs-failed distinction.

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 tells the agent to use ready_to_merge as the signal for whether a PR is clear to merge, and explains the token-scope fallback to Actions jobs. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_pull_request_tool or list_workflow_runs, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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