get_pr_status_checks

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

Annotations mark the tool as read-only. The description goes far beyond by detailing pagination limits (50 per page, max pages), truncation detection, and the effect on the 'overall' field (downgraded to 'unknown' on partial results). This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 that starts with the main action, then efficiently explains pagination behavior and truncation handling. Every sentence adds necessary detail without fluff.

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 description covers the algorithm well, but lacks parameter descriptions. With 3 simple required params and an output schema, the completeness is adequate but not thorough. The missing param documentation reduces the score.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not describe repo_owner, repo_name, or pr_number individually. Although their meaning is somewhat inferable, for full clarity the description should provide at least brief explanations.

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 precisely states it returns CI check runs and commit status for a pull request's HEAD commit. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_pr_diff or create_pr, which have different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (to get CI status), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Among siblings, no other tool provides status checks, so differentiation is less critical, but still no usage context.

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