get_open_pull_requests

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the basic operation ('List open pull requests') without disclosing potential nuances like pagination, ordering, whether drafts are included, or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'List open pull requests.' It is concise with zero redundant information, perfectly suited for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete for a basic list operation. However, it could have been slightly more helpful by noting that it returns only open PRs (excluding merged/closed) or by referencing the output schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 open pull requests' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('open pull requests'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pull_request (which likely fetches a single PR) and merge_pull_request. The 'open' qualifier adds scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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. There is no mention of 'use this to get an overview of open PRs' or exclusions like 'do not use for closed/merged PRs'. The usage is only implied by the tool name, not explicitly stated.

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