Get pull request merge readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('without merging') and that it aggregates multiple signals (draft/status, mergeability, votes, threads, policies, status checks). This is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool performs any side effects like caching, whether it requires special permissions beyond read access, or what happens if the PR is not found. The read-only nature is the key behavioral trait and it is disclosed.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Evaluate') and the resource, then lists the evaluated dimensions compactly. It ends with the key non-mutating qualifier. Every word earns its place, though the list of dimensions is a bit dense and could be structured with commas more clearly.

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 read-only aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a good sense of what the tool checks, but it doesn't explain the return value shape, how the readiness result is expressed (boolean? summary object? reasons?), or how to interpret the evaluation. Given the tool's complexity (multiple signals aggregated), an agent would benefit from knowing what the output looks like to decide if this tool answers its question.

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 compensate for the three parameters. It does not mention repositoryId, pullRequestId, or project at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how they relate to the readiness evaluation, such as whether project is optional or how pullRequestId is used. This is a clear gap given the 0% coverage.

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 ('Evaluate') and resource ('pull request merge readiness'), and enumerates the dimensions it covers: draft/status, mergeability, votes, unresolved threads, policies, and PR status checks. It clearly distinguishes itself from mutation tools like complete_pull_request or set_pull_request_vote by explicitly noting it does not merge. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate from other read-only PR tools like get_pull_request or get_pull_request_review_context.

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 this tool: when you need a comprehensive readiness assessment without performing the merge. The phrase 'without merging' provides an implicit exclusion against complete_pull_request. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over get_pull_request, get_pull_request_threads, or get_pull_request_reviewers, nor does it mention any prerequisites like repositoryId/pullRequestId being valid or auth requirements.

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