Get Pull Request Statuses

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds pagination behavior (defaults, max recommendations) and the warning, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with sections for args, returns, and note. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure is not required but still described. Covers pagination limits and default behavior. Lacks error cases or prerequisites, but adequate for a read tool with annotations.

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 0%, so description must add value. It adds defaults and max recommendations for page_size and max_pages, and notes workspace optionality. However, repo_slug and pull_request_id are not elaborated beyond titles.

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 it retrieves build/CI statuses for a pull request with pagination. The verb 'get' and resource 'pull request statuses' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like get_commit_statuses or get_pull_request.

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?

Provides pagination defaults and a warning about limits (10 pages/300 items). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_commit_statuses or when to use this over get_pull_request.

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