github_list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering and pagination' but doesn't explain what filtering options exist, how pagination works (e.g., default page size, limits), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 key features ('with filtering and pagination'). There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a list operation with rich filtering, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'filtering and pagination,' which loosely relates to some parameters (e.g., state, page, per_page), but doesn't explain what specific filters exist (e.g., base, head, direction, sort) or their semantics. With 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, this minimal guidance is insufficient.

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 action ('List pull requests') and resource ('for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions additional capabilities ('with filtering and pagination'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling GitHub tools like github_get_pr_details or github_get_pr_status, which prevents a perfect score.

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 sibling tools like github_get_pr_details (for specific PRs) or github_get_pr_status (for status checks), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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