list_prs

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior beyond the schema. It only repeats the tool's name and does not mention pagination, default states, or that the output is a list, leaving important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 concise (one sentence) but under-informative. It lacks structure and does not front-load key details, such as the ability to filter by state or pagination, making it barely adequate.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description fails to mention defaults for 'state' and 'per_page', nor does it clarify that the tool returns a list of PRs. More context is needed for completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning; it relies entirely on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 repo.' clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'pull requests', and the context 'for a repo', distinguishing it from sibling 'get_pr' which retrieves 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pr' for a single PR or 'merge_pr' for merging, nor any context about filtering or pagination.

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