pr_build_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which suggests a read operation, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or that it is safe/read-only. For a tool that might have access restrictions or return varying data, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences plus a compact parameter list, all front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 the tool has an output schema, return values are adequately covered by structured data. The description provides the essential purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks information about parameter defaults, optionality, or how workspace/repo interact with pr_id. For a simple read tool it is adequate, but not rich.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists the parameters with brief definitions (pr_id: PR ID number, workspace: Workspace slug, repo: Repository slug). This adds basic meaning beyond the schema's types and titles, but lacks depth like optionality, format, or relationships between parameters.

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 states the tool gets build/pipeline statuses for a pull request, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_pipelines, which lists pipelines generally, and other PR-related tools that handle diff, comments, or merges.

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 usage when you need build/pipeline statuses for a specific pull request, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. Since the purpose is clear, usage is implied, but alternatives are not mentioned.

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