get_gerrit_cl_trybot_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned ('detailed try-bot status... individual bot results and pass/fail counts'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context.

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 and includes specific details about what information is returned. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or unnecessary information. The structure is clear and direct.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic functionality but lacks important contextual information. For a tool with 3 parameters that returns detailed status information, the description should ideally mention something about the return format or structure. However, it does clearly state what information will be included in the response ('individual bot results and pass/fail counts'), which provides some output context.

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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 specific action ('Get detailed try-bot status') and resource ('for a Chromium Gerrit CL'), including the scope of information returned ('individual bot results and pass/fail counts'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_gerrit_cl_status' by focusing specifically on try-bot status rather than general CL status.

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 usage context through the resource specification ('Chromium Gerrit CL'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_gerrit_cl_bot_errors' or 'get_ci_build_errors' that might overlap in functionality, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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