kage_pr_check

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing important behaviors: results are capped to 10 actionable entries by default, stale packets are ranked by urgency, true totals and truncation notes are included, and the output leads with a human summary that should be relayed. It also explains how limit and verbose alter behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and then adding behavioral details in subsequent sentences. Every sentence contributes essential information about what the tool returns and how to control output size. Nothing feels redundant or wasted.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a strong job of explaining the return shape: a human summary first, then capped lists with totals and truncation notes. It does not explicitly describe the overall readiness verdict format, but the purpose statement conveys that a merge-ready assessment is returned. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining the default cap of 10, the urgency ranking for stale packets, that verbose returns everything uncapped, and that limit adjusts the cap. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: it checks whether repo memory, code graph, memory graph, and stale-memory state are ready for merge. This distinguishes it from siblings like kage_context, kage_risk, or kage_refresh, which have different purposes. The title reinforces the same intent without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies use during PR/merge preparation, as it evaluates merge readiness for the current change. It explains what happens on repos with many stale packets and how to get more results, but it does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or state when a sibling tool should be chosen instead. This is clear context with no exclusions, so not a 5.

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