finish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does this well. It discloses side effects (claim marked done, PR opened), ordering ('after the PR is opened'), external dependency (gh CLI), a precondition (branch must be pushed), and an idempotent fallback (returns existing PR URL instead of erroring).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses compact labeled lines for parameters, followed by a concise block of behavioral notes. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, side effects, fallback behavior, and the gh CLI requirement. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and it even mentions the existing-PR return behavior. It is complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, but the description compensates fully. It maps note to PR body with fallback to claim note, title to PR title with fallback to claim task, and draft to opening the PR as draft. This gives the agent meaningful guidance beyond the raw property names.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource pair: 'mark your claim done AND open a GitHub pull request from your claimed branch into the default branch.' This unambiguously states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like claim, update_status, or release by combining completion of the claim with PR creation.

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?

It provides explicit context for when to use the tool: after the branch is pushed and when ready to move work into review. It also mentions the gh CLI requirement and the behavior if a PR already exists. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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