woodpecker_system

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

The description claims writes are possible ('Writes run only when confirm is true'), which is at odds with the readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false annotations on a tool whose action enum contains only read operations. It does add a genuinely useful behavior note by disclosing the WOODPECKER_ALLOW_WRITES environment prerequisite that annotations cannot express, but the write/read framing creates ambiguity about side effects.

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 resource summary is front-loaded and the write gate follows logically, so an agent reading top-down gets the gist quickly. However, re-listing all six action names duplicates the enum verbatim and pads the description without adding selection guidance.

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 six-action dispatcher with no output schema, the description should say something about what each action returns or how results differ (e.g. feed vs queue_info), and it does not. Safety is nominally covered by annotations, but the conflicting write language leaves the agent with an unresolved question about side effects.

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 100% and the schema already explains confirm's dry-run behavior and that the string 'true' is rejected, so the description is not required to carry parameter meaning. The one addition is the WOODPECKER_ALLOW_WRITES environment dependency, which the schema omits, but the restating of the action list adds nothing beyond the enum.

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 names the resources involved (current user, version, health, feed, queue info) and enumerates concrete actions (version, health, me, feed, queue_info, pipeline_queue), so an agent can tell this is a read-oriented status/dispatch tool. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like woodpecker_cron or woodpecker_repos, but the resource set is specific enough to distinguish the surface area.

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?

Usage context is implied by the action list rather than stated: there is no guidance on when to pick 'me' versus 'feed', or when this tool is preferable to the sibling tool families. The only explicit conditional is the write gate ('writes run only when confirm is true and WOODPECKER_ALLOW_WRITES=true'), which is useful but narrow.

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