coach_pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what work happens internally (profile analysis + anti-pattern matching + policy checks) and the branch semantics of the return value (pass=true safe to submit, pass=false blocking issues). It does not mention latency, data sources, or failure modes, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loaded with the routing sentence and final output semantics before the Args list, which is justified at length given 0% schema coverage. Minor redundancy: 'quick pass/fail gate,' 'go/no-go decision,' and 'final gate' restate the same idea across three sentences, and the Returns line partly duplicates the pass=true/false sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the returned dict (pass, tier, signals, checklist, recommended_action), and it covers all 11 inputs at a useful level. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it lacks guidance on required vs optional inputs and on what the 'tier'/'signals' values mean.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it gives ranges and accepted values (repo_merge_rate 0.0-1.0, star_count >= 0, mergeable MERGEABLE/CONFLICTING/UNKNOWN, author_association NONE/CONTRIBUTOR/etc.) and explains the role of diff_stat. It falls short of 5 because the body vs description split is ambiguous ('PR body/description' vs 'Extended description') and it never indicates which params drive the decision.

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 a specific verb and resource ('quick pass/fail gate' for a PR) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_pr by contrasting go/no-go with detailed analysis. It also enumerates the inputs it combines (repo profile analysis, anti-pattern matching, maintainer policy checks), so an agent understands exactly what this tool produces without opening a schema.

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 names the moment to use it ('final gate before opening a PR') and the explicit alternative plus its selection condition ('analyze_pr for detailed analysis'). This is the clearest possible routing guidance in a one-line form.

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