list_pull_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds only the repository scoping, saying nothing about default filtering (state defaults to 'open'), pagination behavior, or result ordering, which are the traits an agent actually needs here.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise — there is essentially one clause of substance. Adding state/pagination context would not have made it bloated.

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?

For a 4-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description omits how results are filtered, paginated, or ordered, and says nothing about the sibling tools available for related tasks. The annotations carry the safety story, but the operational story is missing.

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 50%: 'owner' and 'repo' are documented in the schema, while 'state' and 'per_page' carry only defaults/enums and no prose. The description does not compensate by explaining that results are filtered by state or that per_page caps at 100, so the undocumented half stays unexplained.

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 states a verb ('List') and a resource ('pull requests') scoped to a repository, which is understandable but barely goes beyond the tool name 'list_pull_requests'. It offers no differentiation from siblings like list_issues or search_issues, which list comparable resources in the same domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_issues or get_pull_request, no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or repo access, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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