List Pull Request Work Items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it uses REST API and returns id/url, which reveals read-only intent implicitly, but does not document pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what the response format looks like. Since this is clearly a read-only data-fetching operation with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure is expected.

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 two sentences and wastes no words. It covers core purpose, output scope, and default inheritance in minimal space. The only minor gap is the lack of behavioral details, but structurally it is well-formed and front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list tool with good schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It explains purpose, output format (id/url), and inheritance from az_pr_show, but lacks authentication notes, pagination behavior, output structure, and explicit read-only confirmation. Given that no annotations and no output schema exist, the description should carry more weight for these behavioral facts.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not repeat parameter details but references the az_pr_show defaults, which adds contextual meaning beyond the schema (explaining that project/repository override the same defaults as a sibling tool). Even with high schema coverage, the default-inheritance note adds genuine value.

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 tool fetches PR-associated work items (id and url) via REST API. It specifies the verb (get/list), the resource (PR work items), and the scope (id与url). It distinguishes from siblings by being PR-specific and noting the output is id/url, differentiating from az_pr_show (PR details) and az_pr_changes (file changes). Missing explicit sibling differentiation but the purpose is clear.

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 notes that default organization/project/repository are the same as az_pr_show, which implicitly suggests consistent usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. No when-not guidance or exclusion conditions. The inheritance-from-az_pr_show note is helpful context but doesn't provide operational boundaries.

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