List my review requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in structured fields: results are filtered to OPEN PRs only and returned 'most recently updated first', which tells the agent about state filtering and ordering.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The primary behavior (what is listed and how it is ordered) is front-loaded, with the optional narrowing trailing.

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?

With a full output schema, complete annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly and correctly interpret the open-state/sort semantics. Only minor details such as pagination behavior are absent.

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%, with repo format and limit range/default fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the search can be limited to one repository, adding no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (lists), a precisely scoped resource (open PRs where your review is requested), and the sort order. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_pull_request_files or get_pull_request, which do not list review-request queues.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when you need your review queue), and the optional repo narrowing is noted, but no alternatives or exclusions are named. An agent must infer that this is the review-inbox tool rather than one of the other PR listers.

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