maintainer_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the 5 action outcomes and the decision semantics, but adds nothing about latency, whether repo_merge_rate/labels must be pre-fetched, or failure modes for this 10-param 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and action list, which is good, but version/phase trivia ('v1.5.1', 'Phase 5.1') and the verbose Args/Returns blocks add noise an agent does not need. Every sentence about parameters does earn some place given 0% schema coverage, so it is not wasteful overall but is not tight.

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 compensates by enumerating the return dict keys (action, reason, blocking_signals, next_step, review_ready, impact, review, author_info, context), and it covers all input params. Sufficient for correct invocation, though it never explains what the required vs optional split means or how missing optional inputs affect the action.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does document all 10 args, including non-obvious detail: repo as org/name, author_association values, repo_merge_rate as 0.0-1.0, and a diff_stat format example. It omits semantics for description vs body overlap and the effect of defaults, keeping it short of a 5.

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 action-decision role for a single PR and frames the output question ('What should I do with this PR right now?'), which is distinctive among siblings. It names analyze_pr as the upstream signal source, but does not distinguish itself from triage_pr, coach_pr, or contributor_view, which sound adjacent.

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 'Maintainer-facing action decision' framing implies the maintainer-side use case and mentions the analyze_pr dependency, giving usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to triage_pr/coach_pr/review_queue for the overlapping workflows, so the agent must infer selection.

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