list_open_prs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a read operation with no side effects, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, pagination, or behavior when no PRs exist. The description is minimal and offers no extra behavioral context beyond the obvious read action.

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 a single, short sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description is adequate for the straightforward task. It could optionally mention that the output is a list of PRs, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it provides the necessary information to understand what the tool does.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters). Per the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 action ('list'), the resource ('open pull requests'), and the scope ('in the configured repository'). The tool name also aligns perfectly with its purpose, and the sibling tools (approve, comment, diff) are distinct actions, so there is no ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is intuitive given the sibling tools; it implies usage when a list of open PRs is needed, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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