memory_git_prs

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by indicating data is 'stored in memory' (cached) rather than live. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description reinforces safe behavior. However, it does not elaborate on data freshness or pagination behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and objects. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only list tool with good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the number of PRs returned, but limit parameter covers that. Missing output schema is compensated by list nature.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 stored in memory from connected repositories. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_git_commits by focusing on PRs.

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 implies usage when needing cached PR data, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like memory_git_commits or direct Git operations. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are mentioned.

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