check_ci_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation but never states that it is non-mutating, what auth/scope is required, whether it covers private repos, or whether results are paginated or truncated for large check sets.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its scope appear immediately, and every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema) and the description covers its purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about read-only nature, permissions, and what is returned when checks are absent or failing.

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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, both fully documented as 'Branch name, tag, or commit SHA' and 'owner/repo'. The description merely echoes this, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('GitHub Actions check-runs and overall CI status') scoped to a branch or commit SHA. It is clear enough to distinguish from the issue/PR siblings, though it does not explicitly rule out sibling tools that may also surface CI information (e.g., list_pull_requests).

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?

No indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g., that the ref must exist or that the caller needs repo access). Usage is only implied by the description of what is inspected.

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