list_pull_requests

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses pagination (1-based, limit <=100), filtering options (state, labels, sort, milestone), and default state (open), giving complete behavioral transparency.

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 efficient sentences plus an example. No fluff: first sentence defines purpose, second covers pagination and filters, example demonstrates usage. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Covers all aspects: purpose, pagination, filters, defaults, example, alternative for cross-repo search. No output schema, but description suffices for a list operation with 8 optional parameters.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining pagination pattern, that labels are comma-separated names, and provides an example call, going beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'List pull requests in one Gitea repository.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_issues for cross-repo 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?

Explicitly explains pagination behavior ('keep paging until a page returns fewer than limit') and when not to use ('Cross-repo PR search uses search_issues'), providing a clear alternative.

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