github_list_prs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. Listing pull requests is implicitly read-only, and the description mentions return fields but does not explicitly state that it causes no side effects, nor does it note any rate limits or pagination behavior. The schema covers filtering and limits, but the description alone is somewhat sparse.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the return fields. It is well-structured and contains no filler.

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 simple listing tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return values adequately. The schema fills in parameter details. However, it could be improved by explicitly noting the default state filter (open) and the limit parameter, though those are in the schema, so the description is reasonably complete.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, such as owner/repo semantics or the state enum values.

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 'List pull requests in a GitHub repository' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_issues by explicitly mentioning pull requests. It also lists the returned fields, which adds clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_list_issues. The description merely states what it does without indicating exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferred.

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