Github Get Pr Status Checks

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

The description discloses detailed pagination behavior, hard caps, the truncated=True flag, and the downgrade from 'passing' to 'unknown' on partial results. This goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations and tells the agent how to interpret potentially incomplete data.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the following two sentences provide necessary edge-case behavior with no filler. The internal constant names make the middle sentence dense, but it remains appropriately sized for a tool with non-obvious truncation semantics.

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 simple required parameters, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious pagination/truncation semantics well. It omits general usage context and error/permission notes, but those are less critical for this read-only tool with an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explicitly map repo_owner/repo_name/pr_number to their roles beyond the 'pull request' context. However, the parameter names are conventional and the first sentence implies that pr_number identifies the PR whose HEAD commit is inspected, so a capable agent can infer the required values.

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 opening clause uses a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('CI check runs and commit status for a pull request's HEAD commit'), which clearly separates it from PR-content siblings like github_get_pr_content or github_get_pr_diff. Even without naming an alternative, the resource is distinctive enough for an agent to identify it.

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 when-to-use context or alternatives are provided; it explains mechanics rather than when to choose this over other GitHub tools. The only usage-related remark is the caution about not acting on a truncated result, which is a caveat, not selection guidance.

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