list_pr_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It conveys a read-only 'list' action but omits pagination behavior, permissions, ordering, or any indication of what the returned statuses contain, leaving significant behavior undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention pagination, the page parameter's role, or any return-value details, so an agent could under-specify a request or miss statuses beyond the first page.

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?

With schema coverage at 67%, pr_id and repo_slug are already documented, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The optional page parameter is entirely unexplained, so an agent has no guidance on how pagination works or when to set it.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('commit/build statuses for a pull request'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests and list_pr_comments.

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 resource scope provides implied usage context: use this whenever commit/build statuses for a PR are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is present only by inference.

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