gitee_list_pulls

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It only states 'List pull requests' and reveals nothing about read-only nature, pagination, filtering capabilities, or authorization requirements. The schema implies behavior (e.g., state parameter allows filtering), but the description does not clarify this.

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 extremely concise (three words), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. While it is front-loaded, it does not earn its place because it adds no value over the tool name. A few additional words about filtering or pagination would greatly improve usefulness without harming conciseness.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would have no understanding of the tool's scope, return format, or how parameters interact. The minimum viable description for such a complex tool should at least mention repo-specific listing, filtering options, and pagination.

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 input schema already documents all 11 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 'List pull requests' is a minimal restatement of the tool name. It clearly indicates the verb and resource, but fails to distinguish from sibling list tools such as gitee_list_enterprise_pulls or gitee_list_pull_comments. The scope (repo-specific) is implied by required parameters owner/repo but not mentioned in the description.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions (e.g., must have owner and repo) or limitations. The agent receives no guidance on selecting this tool among many similar list operations.

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