List pull requests

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a genuinely subtle behavioral detail: both merged PRs and closed-without-merge PRs show state='closed', so the caller must rely on the 'merged' field. It also states the exact return shape, which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and structured into parameters, return values, and a critical note. Every sentence adds value, and no redundant or promotional wording appears.

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 giving a precise returns contract. All six parameters are covered (albeit summarized), the state ambiguity is resolved, and the tool's behavior in a paginated listing context is fully understandable for an agent.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description's parameter list mostly restates the schema's enum values and defaults rather than adding new meaning, though it does helpfully surface them in one place. This fits the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists a repository's pull requests.' This is clear and distinct from sibling tools like get_pull_request (single PR) and list_issues (issues rather than PRs), and the title is expanded with sufficient specificity.

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 context makes clear this is the list-all-PRs operation, and the default state='open' plus available state filter gives practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as get_pull_request for a single PR, but the intended use is nonetheless obvious and unambiguous.

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