Github Get Pr Linked Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no side-effect disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the returned issues are the ones linked to auto-close on merge, which is not visible from the schema or annotations.

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 definition is brief and front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is terse but somewhat cryptic, directing the agent to github_get_skill('pr-analysis') without explaining why, so the structure is good but not flawless.

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?

For a read-only three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key semantic behavior. It omits explicit parameter and workflow detail, but the low complexity and available schema make it reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It never mentions repo_owner, repo_name, or pr_number, though the phrase 'pull request' indirectly points at pr_number. The parameter names are inferable, but the description adds almost no explicit semantic value.

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 first sentence clearly states a specific verb and resource: it returns issues that will be auto-closed when a pull request is merged. This makes the tool's operation evident, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_pr_content or github_pr_issue_analyser_ui.

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 only usage-related text is the cryptic 'Workflow and conventions: github_get_skill('pr-analysis')', which instructs the agent to fetch a skill rather than explaining when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.

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