list_dashboard_pull_requests

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds behavioral context about custom field selection via the `fields` parameter, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core purpose, second explains a key parameter. No wasteful words, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and a key parameter. Omits mention of pagination defaults (start, limit) or sorting, but the schema covers these. Given no output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes all 8 parameters. The description adds meaningful guidance for the `fields` parameter (example values, dot notation, defaults), justifying above baseline.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'pull requests', and the scope 'from the authenticated user dashboard'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pull_requests by noting 'No project/repo needed'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (dashboard PRs without a specific repo). It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, but the sibling context and 'No project/repo needed' imply appropriate usage.

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