list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the basic function and a parameter option, without mentioning pagination (despite per_page parameter), rate limits, or return format. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it is overly minimal. While conciseness is valued, it sacrifices essential detail, making it less useful than it could be.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema, but the description covers none of these in depth. It lacks information on pagination, required fields, and response structure, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, yet the description only adds meaning to the 'state' parameter by listing its possible values. The required parameters 'owner' and 'repo' are not explained, and 'per_page' is omitted. This is insufficient compensation for the low coverage.

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 'List pull requests,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' (for a single PR) or 'list_issues' (for issues), missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 mentions the 'state' parameter options but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_pull_request' for a single PR or 'list_issues' for issues. No exclusions or contexts are given.

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