GitHub Create Pull Request

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., creating a PR triggers checks, comments) or authentication requirements. Critical safety and operation details are missing.

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 single-sentence description is brief but omits essential information. Conciseness should preserve completeness; here it sacrifices utility for brevity, making it under-specified.

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 6 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to convey return values, error scenarios, or relationships to other GitHub tools, leaving major gaps for an AI 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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (base and head). The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond stating the action, leaving the agent to infer semantics from param names alone.

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 verb 'opens' and the resource 'pull request on a GitHub repository'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like github_create_issue or github_get_file, though it could be more specific about the context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_request for raw API calls) or prerequisites (e.g., existing repository, branch availability). The lack of context leaves the agent without decision support.

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