get_related_prs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only query operation ('Find...'), and there is no contradiction. However, it does not disclose details such as whether the operation is safe (non-destructive), potential rate limits, or the scope of results (e.g., pagination). The description's brevity leaves some behavioral aspects implicit, which is acceptable for a straightforward tool but could be more explicit.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and scope, front-loading the critical information. The second sentence adds value by explaining the use case. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence serves a purpose.

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's low complexity (2 simple parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the primary function and use case. However, it does not describe the return format or result structure (e.g., list of PR numbers, full PR objects, ordering). Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally provide some insight into what the agent can expect. The omission leaves a completeness gap, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes both parameters (ref: PR number or commit hash; repoSlug: repository slug). The description does not add new information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3, as it does not enhance understanding of parameter usage or constraints.

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's action: 'Find other pull requests that touched the same files as a given PR or commit.' It uses a specific verb 'find' and identifies the resource 'pull requests,' with a clear scope based on file overlap. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_changed_files' (which lists files of a PR) and 'get_commit_history_for_file' (history of a file). The addition of 'useful for discovering related work and potential conflict areas' adds context without ambiguity.

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 states when to use this tool: when you need to find related PRs based on shared files. It also provides a rationale ('useful for discovering related work and potential conflict areas'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives. Given the clear primary use case and the list of sibling tools that offer different functionalities, the guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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