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 optional filtering by state but doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether results are paginated (implied by page/pagelen parameters but not stated), what the return format looks like, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('list pull requests for a repository') and adds one key detail ('with optional filtering by state'). There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior (despite page/pagelen parameters), error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a list operation in a rich API context, more contextual information is needed to guide proper usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional state filtering, which is already covered in the schema's enum for the 'state' parameter. No additional parameter context, examples, or constraints beyond the schema are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('list') and resource ('pull requests for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filtering by state, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' (singular) or 'list_pr_comments', which would have earned a 5.

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 like 'get_pull_request' (for a single PR) or 'list_pr_comments' (for comments on PRs). It mentions optional state filtering but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what the default behavior is. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.

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