list_pull_requests

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description clarifies that author filtering is client-side and page-limited, and explains `fields` param with examples. Adds concrete behavioral context not present in 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 concise sentences: first states purpose and filters, second details `fields` param. Front-loaded with core function, no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Covers purpose and key parameters but lacks description of return structure (no output schema). Agent may need to infer default fields or pagination details from schema. Minor gap given complexity.

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 describes all 9 parameters fully (100% coverage). Description adds value by summarizing key filters and providing a concrete example for `fields` ('id,title,state'), aiding quick comprehension without reading schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List pull requests in a repository' with specific verb and scope. Differentiates from siblings like 'get_pull_request' (single PR) and 'list_dashboard_pull_requests' (dashboard scope) by explicitly mentioning repository context.

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?

Implies usage for repository-specific listing via name and description, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'search' or 'list_dashboard_pull_requests'. Does provide guidance on filtering parameters and client-side author filtering behavior.

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