Refresh fix CI status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it pulls from GitHub and is for a fix attempt, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or response details.

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 sentence, perfectly concise with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 simple read operation with one well-documented parameter and thorough annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention what the tool returns, but the lack of output schema and the tool's name make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter fixId as 'Fix attempt UUID' (100% coverage). The description does not add any further meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies the verb 'Pull the latest', the resource 'GitHub check-run status', and the scope 'for a fix attempt'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fix_context or get_fix_timeline by focusing on CI 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 tells what the tool does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The usage context is implied but not formally stated.

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