list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the basic action and the inclusion of CI status, without disclosing pagination behavior, output structure, whether the operation is read-only, or any authentication requirements. The 'CI check status' phrase implies additional data but does not explain its representation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description provides only a high-level action. It does not explain what the returned data contains (e.g., PR numbers, titles, CI status details), whether results are paginated, or how it handles edge cases like no open PRs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent making a selection decision.

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%, and the description does not explain the owner_repo parameter. While the parameter name hints at owner/repo, the format and expected value are undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's field name and type.

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 tool lists open PRs and includes CI check status, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_open_issues and get_pr_diff, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The mention of 'CI check status' is slightly ambiguous but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 such as list_open_issues or get_pr_diff. It does not mention any prerequisites, filtering conditions, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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