bb_get_pr_statuses

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 states the high-level outcome ('checks whether builds pass or fail') and does not mention pagination behavior, result shape, error conditions, or how `output_format` and `filter` affect the response. This leaves the agent under-informed about what to expect.

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 redundant text. The parenthetical 'checks whether builds pass or fail' adds valuable clarification without bloating the description.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only lookup but is not rich. With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it would benefit from mentioning pagination or the return format. However, the 100% schema description coverage reduces the need for the description to repeat parameter details.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying the target as a pull request, but the schema already documents each parameter clearly, so no significant gap exists.

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 action ('Get'), the target resource ('pull request'), and the specific domain ('CI/CD build statuses') while clarifying the output's meaning ('checks whether builds pass or fail'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_commit_statuses (statuses for a commit) and bb_get_pull_request (PR metadata).

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 phrase 'for a pull request' implies when this tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance contrasting it with alternatives like bb_get_commit_statuses or stating when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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