list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which informs the agent that the tool will not mutate data. This is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other potential traits like pagination or rate limits, though these are partially covered by the schema.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that clearly states the purpose and a brief note on safety. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while still conveying the core function.

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 has 8 parameters, 3 enums, and no annotations, yet the description provides only the most basic purpose. It does not explain filtering options, default behaviors, or when to use which parameters. With an output schema present, return values are known, but the overall usage context is insufficient for a complex tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter semantics. It does not explain what base, head, sort, state, direction, or max_results do, nor does it clarify owner and repo beyond the schema's own titles. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lists pull requests for a GitHub repository, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_pull_request by indicating a list operation rather than a single item fetch. The addition of 'Read-only' further clarifies scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request. It does not mention filters or scenarios that would select this tool, nor does it give any exclusions. No explicit usage context is provided beyond the basic listing purpose.

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