sassy_ghq_pr

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 clearly indicates a mutating action ('Create') but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, branch handling, or what happens on duplicate PRs. The description is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, its brevity sacrifices essential operational detail, so it is concise but not as useful as it could be.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values don't need explaining), the description omits all contextual guidance: branch semantics, when to use the tool vs siblings, and parameter meaning. Given the six-parameter schema and absence of annotations, this is insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 has six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description mentions none of them. While names like 'owner', 'repo', and 'title' are self-explanatory, 'head' and 'base' are Git-specific and remain unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their roles.

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 states 'Create a pull request.', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It clearly identifies the core action and differentiates from sibling tools like sassy_ghq_issue, sassy_ghq_push, and sassy_ghq_protect by naming the PR operation, though it offers no additional nuance about the scope or type of pull request.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sassy_ghq_issue, sassy_ghq_get, or sassy_ghq_push, and it lacks any prerequisites, exclusions, or context about the PR creation workflow.

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