ado_git_list_prs

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already in annotations, the description adds value by stating what the return fields are (PR ID, title, status, branches, creator, reviewers) and clarifying the project/repository scope. It does not contradict the annotations and provides output behavior useful for an agent.

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?

Three focused sentences: first asserts the main action, second lists filters and returned fields, third points to the sibling for deeper detail. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with complete schema descriptions, annotations, and no output schema, this description is nearly complete: it states return fields, naming the scope, and the sibling to use for detailed metadata. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning pagination, but the 'top' parameter is already documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description mentions 'filter by status and creator' and 'specific repository', which maps to schema fields but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('List pull requests') and clearly scopes the tool to a project or specific repository. It also names the sibling 'ado_git_get_pr' for full details, immediately distinguishing this list tool from the detail tool.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool and points directly to the sibling 'ado_git_get_pr' when full details on a specific PR are needed. It could be more explicit about when not to use other sibling tools, but the primary alternative is clearly stated.

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