list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'List' without explaining pagination, default state filtering, or that this is a read-only operation. It adds no context beyond the basic action, failing to disclose non-obvious behavior like default state='open' or max per_page.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 list tool, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not mention the state parameter, pagination, or how it fits with siblings. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description alone would not fully inform an agent about the tool's capabilities without reading the schema.

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%: each parameter (repo, page, state, per_page) has a clear description and default. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents 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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'pull requests in a repository'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pull_request (single) and create_pull_request (creation). The scope is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_issues or search_issues. It does not mention state filtering, pagination, or any context for selection. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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