status_prs

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 adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the save_snapshot side effect (persisting to data/status-snapshots/) and the explicit rationale for defaulting it False (frequent MCP polling would flood the directory). It does not explain the transition-detection semantics of the snapshot beyond a one-line mention.

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 the status taxonomy, then organized into Args and Returns sections. The 9-status enumeration is long but earns its place by defining the output vocabulary; the 'Returns' line is useful given there is no output schema.

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 naming the return keys (prs, ignored, summary, actions, transitions) and the status categories. Params are covered and the snapshot side effect is disclosed, leaving only minor gaps such as parameter optionality and the meaning of 'transitions'.

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 must carry the burden, and it does: all four params are explained with meaning and format hints ('GitHub username', 'org/name', stale_days defaulting to profile or 14, and the save_snapshot tradeoff). It omits that every parameter is optional with a null default, which the schema technically encodes but doesn't document.

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 ('Check health of in-flight PRs') and quantifies the output (9 named statuses plus suggested actions), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many related siblings (list_open_prs, triage_pr, review_queue), leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set that includes list_open_prs, triage_pr, and review_queue. The 'outbound PR heartbeat' phrase hints at context but offers no when/when-not condition or prerequisite.

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