github.list_prs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately states the core behavior but fails to disclose pagination behavior, the default state (open), or that it is a read-only operation. These details are left to the schema, which is minimal, making the transparency adequate but incomplete.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it very efficient.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, but the description leaves gaps about valid state values and pagination parameters (page/per_page). The defaults in the schema partially compensate, yet an agent may still struggle with correct invocation without further guidance.

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 compensate. It only clarifies the 'state' parameter via 'filtered by state,' but leaves owner, repo, page, and per_page without semantic explanation. The description does not meaningfully help an agent understand these parameters.

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 purpose: 'List pull requests in a repository, filtered by state.' It uses a specific verb (List), resource (pull requests), scope (repository), and filter (state), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pr that retrieve a single PR.

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 the tool (listing PRs in a repo) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_pr for a single PR' or 'use list_issues for issues only.' Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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