create_pull_request

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

The description explicitly states it creates a pull request, which is a state-changing action. It also mentions that it generates the PR description from work sessions, giving insight into the tool's behavior. No annotations exist to contradict this, so the description carries the burden adequately, though it does not detail all potential side effects (e.g., whether task statuses are updated).

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality, a generation detail, and a prerequisite. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary information.

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 the absence of annotations and a simple schema with two optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it generates the PR description, and a key prerequisite. It does not mention return values or error handling, but the output schema is absent and the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in typical scenarios.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (title and baseBranch), covering 100% of them. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline score. The optional nature and defaults are implied by the schema but not elaborated in the description.

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 the tool's action: 'Create a GitHub pull request for all tasks in the current branch.' It specifies the resource (GitHub pull request) and scope (all tasks in current branch), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_tasks or create_task.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires GitHub integration configured for the project') and implies when it would be used (when a PR needs to be created for tasks). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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