list_inbox_pull_requests

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

Description discloses that it returns PRs needing review, explaining the inbox concept. It does not detail ordering or edge cases, but as a read-only list operation with no annotations, it sufficiently informs 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?

Description is concise and well-structured: front-loaded purpose, then inbox explanation, then parameter details. No redundant information.

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?

With an output schema present, description adequately explains what the tool returns (list of PRs needing review). It is complete enough given the tool's simplicity and the context signals (3 params, no required params).

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter (role, start, limit) and their defaults, adding value beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 clearly states it lists pull requests in the authenticated user's inbox that need review action. It explains what the inbox contains (PRs where user is reviewer and not yet completed review), distinguishing it from general PR listing tools.

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?

Description specifies the context: PRs needing review action, implying when to use (to see pending reviews). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tools (list_pull_requests, list_dashboard_pull_requests) provide differentiation.

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