search_pull_requests

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default org-wide scope, the ability to restrict to repo/project, and the available filters. The API endpoint '(GET _apis/git/pullrequests)' informs the agent that this is a read-only operation, but it does not address pagination, result ordering, or authentication requirements.

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 two concise clauses plus a parenthetical API path, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, then lists filters, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 search tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of scope and filters. It does not mention pagination via `top` or the return format, which would be useful, but the tool name and API path make it inferable that a list of pull requests is returned.

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 83%, and the description reiterates the filter parameters (status, creatorId, targetRef) and scoping (repoId, project) but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The `top` parameter lacks a schema description and is not mentioned in the description, leaving that parameter under-explained.

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 it 'Search[es] pull requests ORG-WIDE by default' and can scope to a repo or project, naming specific filters. This verb+resource+scope structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pull_request (which retrieves a single PR) and search_work_items (which searches a different entity).

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 on when to use the tool: 'ORG-WIDE by default, or within a repo (repoId) or a project' indicates the search scope. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer get_pull_request over this search, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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