PR checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious output policy that passing checks are counted rather than listed by default. It does not cover error behavior for a missing/unresolvable PR, but that is a minor gap against the annotation baseline.

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?

Two dense sentences: what it returns first, default targeting and the listing exception second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only profile, so the description need only frame intent and the default scoping rule — both are present. Nothing needed to call this three-optional-param tool correctly is missing.

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 100% and all three parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the two most important defaults (`pr` and `all=true`) but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report a pull request's CI checks') and even characterizes the payload ('counts per state plus the failing and pending checks'). It is clearly distinct from unrelated siblings, though it never names the nearest analog (glab_ci_status) for contrast.

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?

Gives the default target ('Defaults to the current branch's PR') and states the condition that changes behavior ('unless all=true'), so an agent knows how to invoke it with no arguments. No explicit when-not or sibling-alternative guidance is given.

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