list_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 explaining behavior. It discloses that the result is a page mapping with normalized pull-request items, and that enabling raw includes provider payloads. This goes beyond the schema and gives an agent a useful model of the response shape and raw-mode side behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence adds practical information, and the example clarifies both input and the normalized output shape without redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with six parameters, the description covers the invocation essentials: parameters, pagination, raw payload behavior, and a concrete output example. It does not address provider-specific auth requirements or error conditions, but these are not essential for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to all six parameters. It usefully defines the repo format as owner/name or workspace/slug, page as one-based, page_size as 1 through 100, and raw as including provider payloads. It stops short of enumerating provider key values or state filter options, which remain ambiguous.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: "List pull requests in a repository." It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pull_request, list_pull_request_commits, and list_pull_request_comments because it targets the pull-request collection itself rather than a single PR or a related sub-resource. The example input and output reinforce this purpose.

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 and example make it obvious that this tool is for enumerating pull requests in a repository, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_pull_request for a single PR or list_pull_request_reviews for reviews. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped with when/when-not guidance.

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