list_pull_requests

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds the valid `state` values. However, it does not disclose behavior around pagination defaults, result ordering, or whether `state=null` means all pull requests. Annotations already cover the read-only safety aspect, so the description adds modest but not rich behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The `state` clarification is concise and useful. It loses one point only because it is so sparse that it leaves important behavioral and parameter context unaddressed, but as a concise opening statement it is efficient.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the read-only annotation is present, the description does not provide enough context for a correct call: it omits pagination semantics, parameter defaults, and any indication of scope (owner/repo) beyond what the schema names. For a list operation with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting parameters. It only explains valid values for `state` and leaves `owner`, `repo`, `page`, and `limit` entirely undocumented. While some are self-explanatory by name, the pagination semantics and default behavior are not clarified, which is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Description includes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests'), and further specifies the `state` filter values (open/closed/all). It clearly conveys the operation and distinguishes it from single-PR operations like get_pull_request, though it does not explicitly state that it operates on a repo-scoped list.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pull_request, list_pull_reviews, or list_issues. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of when it is appropriate or when another sibling tool should be used instead.

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