list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'open repository' implies a required prior state, but it says nothing about default state filtering, pagination, or result ordering — meaningful gaps for an unannotated list tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal tightness.

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 two-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should at minimum cover the default state behavior and limit semantics. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at invocation semantics.

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% and the description mentions neither of the two parameters. Neither 'limit' nor the 'state' enum (open/closed/all) is explained, and critically the default state is unspecified, so an agent cannot tell whether omitting 'state' returns only open PRs or all of them.

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') and scopes it to the currently open repository, which lets an agent distinguish it from create_pull_request or merge_pull_request among the siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose 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?

The phrase 'in the open repository' hints at a prerequisite (a repo must be opened first, e.g. via open_repository), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as list_issues. The agent must infer context.

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