github_list_pull_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result ordering, pagination behavior, or whether listing spans all states by default. 'state is open, closed, or all' simply restates the enum already present in the schema.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized; the issue is under-specification rather than padding.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, the un-explained max_results cap means an agent has no idea results are truncated by default, which is the main missing piece.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it addresses only state — and only by repeating the enum values. owner, repo, and especially max_results (default 10, max 50, i.e. a pagination cap) are left entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a listing tool.

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 and resource — 'List pull requests in a repository' — which is clearly distinguishable from the other github siblings (get_pr_diff_summary, create_issue, add_comment) and the jira tools. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the resource is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as github_get_pr_diff_summary. The only contextual statement is an enumeration of state values, which is parameter data rather than usage guidance.

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