get_gerrit_cl_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'status and test results' includes (e.g., build status, test outcomes, timing), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or how results are formatted. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get status and test results for a Chromium Gerrit CL') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of Gerrit CL status (which can include multiple test types and build outcomes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'status and test results' entails, how results are structured, or potential limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'cl_number' well-documented in the schema (accepting CL numbers or full URLs). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 clearly states the action ('Get status and test results') and the resource ('for a Chromium Gerrit CL'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_gerrit_cl_trybot_status' or 'get_gerrit_cl_bot_errors', which likely provide overlapping or related information about Gerrit CLs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to Gerrit CLs (e.g., get_gerrit_cl_trybot_status, get_gerrit_cl_bot_errors, get_gerrit_cl_comments), there's no indication of what specific 'status and test results' means or how it differs from other tools that might provide similar or complementary data.

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