Get Pull Requests in Range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval ('Get'), defines scope ('merged PRs between two refs'), and discloses output details (labels, linked issues, review counts, files changed) plus categorization by label. Missing explicit notes on pagination, rate limits, or edge cases, but for a non-destructive tool this is solid.

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 sentences, fully front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds valuable output details without any filler. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given 4 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns: merged PR metadata and categorization. It could mention behavior for empty results or invalid refs, but the main functionality and output are well covered.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description reinforces 'between two refs' but does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all merged pull requests between two refs'), clearly differentiating from siblings like get_changes_between_refs (likely file changes) and get_release_summary (summary). It also specifies the output includes full metadata and label-based categorization.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: it is for retrieving merged PRs between two refs. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tools are not mentioned in the description.

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