code.open_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavioral traits: approval required, workspace write, and dangerous risk. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand side effects, though it could say more about what changes on the remote.

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 short and front-loaded with critical risk and approval markers. The single sentence is efficient, though 'current allowed feature branch' is slightly jargon-heavy.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves substantial gaps: parameter meanings, branch push behavior, failure modes, and expected result are not addressed. The risk markers help but do not make the definition complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain meaning for title, body, base, and draft. It mentions none of them. The agent gets no help understanding parameter semantics beyond bare property names.

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 and resource: 'Open a pull request with GitHub CLI from the current allowed feature branch.' This unambiguously separates it from siblings like code.create_branch, code.commit_changes, and ci.comment_pr. The scope ('current allowed feature branch') adds useful precision.

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 when to use the tool by requiring 'approval' and being from the 'current allowed feature branch,' but it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives. Context is present, but exclusionary guidance is absent.

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