List pull requests

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the output is limited to PR index and title, results are paged up to 50, and an empty result may indicate the forge does not support PR listing at all. That last caveat is a non-obvious failure mode an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability before the CI routing and empty-list caveat. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is decorative.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the pagination model, and it flags the ambiguous-empty-list case. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it leaves duplicate-name edge cases and total counts unaddressed.

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 100%, so all four parameters (instance, repo, page, per_page) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 50-per-page cap but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lists open pull requests of a repository') plus the output shape ('as index (the PR number) and title'), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_pipelines or list_branches.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent for the related CI task ('To check CI for one, call list_pipelines with event=pull_request ... or get_pipeline with number="latest"'), which is strong alternative guidance. However it does not state when to prefer this tool over other listing siblings (e.g. list_branches) or any prerequisites for listing.

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