list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by state and pagination via 'limit', but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., what 'basic info' includes), whether results are sorted, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured breakdown of args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of 'basic info'), behavioral aspects like sorting or pagination, and context for usage among siblings. This leaves room for improvement in guiding an AI agent effectively.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug', 'state' with allowed values and default, and 'limit' with default and max values. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail 'repo_slug' format (e.g., 'owner/repo') or 'limit' constraints beyond max.

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's purpose: 'List pull requests in a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_pull_request' (singular) and 'list_pr_comments' (comments only). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_repositories' or other list tools beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_pull_request' (for a single PR), 'list_pr_comments' (for PR comments), or 'list_repositories' (for repositories instead of PRs). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing repository access, or when filtering by state is appropriate.

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