list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if repo doesn't exist), rate limits, or data freshness. This is a significant gap for a listing tool.

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 well-structured with a concise one-line summary followed by a detailed Args block. It is appropriately sized for 11 parameters, with no superfluous 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers all input parameters adequately. However, it could mention pagination behavior beyond start/limit defaults (e.g., total count indication) for full completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all 11 parameters. It provides defaults, allowed values (e.g., state: 'OPEN', 'DECLINED', 'MERGED', 'ALL'), and functional meaning (e.g., 'optional target branch ref filter'). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 it lists pull requests in a repository with pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' (single PR) and 'list_dashboard_pull_requests' (dashboard scope).

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 implicitly defines the use case by specifying repository-scoped listing with pagination and filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though sibling context provides clarity.

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