memory_pr_status

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the default report mode is a no-op, that apply=true writes only to local files, and that even then no push occurs — an important blast-radius limit that openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false cannot express. readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the documented apply=true write path, so there is no contradiction; the only gap is upstream behavior such as missing-PR or auth handling.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then the mode semantics before the parenthetical deployment note. It is dense but largely earns its length; the trailing note about the MCP server/CLI/native plugin is tangential to invoking the tool and is the one part that dilutes focus.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, it covers the essential invocation semantics: what is read, how state maps, and when writes happen. The only shortfall is that the shape of the 'report' output is never sketched, leaving the agent to infer what the default mode returns.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'apply' fully. The description reinforces the default and adds the 'still no push' nuance, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read the current branch's GitHub PR and map its review state onto each in-repo memory') and then spells out the exact mapping rules (merged → published, approval → approved, changes-requested → suggestion). The mapping semantics make it immediately distinguishable from the plain memory_* siblings, which none of them do.

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?

It clarifies the two modes ('report by default; apply=true writes'), which is genuine usage guidance for the one parameter. However, it never names when to prefer this over siblings like memory_promote or memory_status, which also touch memory state, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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