get_code_insights

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and names the source systems, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or what happens when a PR has no reports — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the use case. No redundancy or filler; the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It names the report types but does not hint at result shape, empty-state behavior, or permissions, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the call's outcome.

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%, so all three parameters (prId, project, repository) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the correct 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?

Specific verb ("Retrieve") plus concrete resource ("Code Insights reports ... and their annotations for a pull request") with named examples (SonarQube, security scans). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_reviews or get_comments, but the resource is distinctive enough to disambiguate.

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?

"Use this to check quality gates, code coverage, security findings, and other CI/CD analysis results" gives clear intended use cases. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to an alternative sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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