get_pull_request_merge_status

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

The description discloses only the basic action of checking mergeability, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, what specific preconditions are evaluated, or any error/edge-case behavior. With no annotations to fall back on, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous detail. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place with no wasted words.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description leaves out critical context such as the return value (e.g., boolean, status object), the meaning of 'merge preconditions', and any validation or failure behavior. Without an output schema or annotations, this omission creates a notable gap in understanding.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with simple descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the agent can rely on the schema alone for parameter understanding.

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 identifies the action (check) and the resource (pull request merge status), and the parenthetical 'merge preconditions' adds useful scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pull_request, though it does not explicitly compare itself to them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions under which it should be chosen. The description simply states what it does without any contextual direction.

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