github_get_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention default state filtering (open), limit defaults, pagination, or what exactly 'diff statistics' entails. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavior beyond the basic read operation.

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 that efficiently states the core function. It is concise with no filler, but it could include more useful details without becoming verbose, so it does not achieve a perfect score.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the return value looks like, how parameters interact, or any behavioral nuances. The lack of output schema means the description should cover return semantics, but it only mentions diff statistics vaguely.

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 only 33% (only 'repo' is described). The tool description does not explain the 'limit' or 'state' parameters, nor does it add meaning beyond their names and schema defaults. The mention of 'diff statistics' gives some context but does not compensate for the lack of parameter clarification.

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 gets pull requests in a repository with diff statistics, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pull requests in a repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_get_commits, github_list_branches, and github_search_issues by focusing on pull requests and adding the diff statistics detail.

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 implies usage when the user needs pull requests with diff statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool alternative is mentioned, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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