github_list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or that the operation is read-only. The description carries the full burden for transparency but only states the action, leaving 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 concise and efficient, using a single line for purpose followed by a parameter list. No extraneous information, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers the core usage but omits important details like pagination, sorting, ordering, and return value expectations. An output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent with incomplete context for complex queries.

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 adds essential meaning to each parameter: repo format, state options, and author filter. This significantly aids correct invocation beyond the raw 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 'List pull requests for a repo' with specific verb and resource, and details the repo format and filters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_list_issues or github_list_commits, which could lead to confusion when selecting the correct tool.

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 parameter details but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_get_pull_request or github_list_pull_request_files. It does not specify context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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