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 behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read operation. It says nothing about pagination behavior (top/skip), default scoping (organization, project, repository defaults), authentication requirements, or what the result set looks like.

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, which is structurally clean. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than verbosity, but nothing written is wasted.

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 ten-parameter, filter-heavy listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essential context: that results are paginated and filterable by status, creator, reviewer, and branch, and what the response contains. An agent could call it, but only by reverse-engineering 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% with all ten parameters documented, including the status enum and default values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case for a fully documented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List pull requests in a repository'), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_pull_request or create_pull_request, but the 'List' verb makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_pull_request or the search tools, and no mention of the supported filtering or pagination workflow. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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