triage_prs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses filtering behavior and inclusion of impact data. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects or required permissions, which would be beneficial for a triage tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: first packs purpose and behavior, second provides usage triggers. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, description adequately explains return value as 'full graph impact data'. For 3 optional params, it covers filtering and defaults. Minor gap: doesn't explain what 'graph impact data' entails.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds value by noting auto-detection for 'base' and defaults for 'repo' and 'project_path'. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns actionable open PRs with specific filters (correct base, not stale) and graph impact data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_prs by emphasizing 'actionable' and 'full graph impact data'.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: when the user asks about PRs to review or merge. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the guidance is clear and direct.

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