baron_scm_read

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return values for each operation (normalized state, review decision, mergeability, checks rollup; most recent PR or null) and mentions null return for pr_for_branch. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 paragraph but is well-structured with inline code formatting for operations. It front-loads the primary purpose and efficiently packs details. Could be improved with bullet points, but remains clear and concise.

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 has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so for both operations and adds usage hints (e.g., idempotency probe). Missing details on error conditions or empty results (e.g., what happens if pullRequestId is not found), but overall sufficient for a simple read 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 only 25% (only 'op' has a schema description). The tool description compensates by explaining the meaning and usage of all parameters: it describes the two op values and their associated parameters (pullRequestId, sourceBranch, state) with clear semantics, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Read source-control state,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It then enumerates two distinct operations with detailed outputs, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'baron_scm_write'.

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 implies usage patterns (e.g., 'open is the idempotency probe before creating one' suggests use before baron_scm_write) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No direct reference to sibling tools.

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