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 only states the basic action and fails to mention pagination, filtering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have such behaviors.

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, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it lacks critical details that could be included without clutter. It is not misleading and reads clearly.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It fails to mention whether all pull requests or only open ones are returned, lacks any usage context, and does not address behavioral concerns. The description, while minimally functional, leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a repository' which vaguely hints at the repo parameter but does not explain the meaning of 'owner' or clarify required vs optional parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the 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?

The description 'List pull requests for a repository' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (pull requests) with scope (for a repository). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_pull_request or analyze_pull_request, though it does not explicitly differentiate by noting it returns multiple results.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like list_repository_issues or analyze_pull_request, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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