get_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description only says 'List pull requests' and lists result fields, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination limits, authentication needs, or how filtering works (though the schema covers state). It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it provides minimal additional behavioral context beyond declaring it lists. Thus it is significantly under-specified.

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 that captures the core action and the returned fields. It is front-loaded with the action 'List' and the resource, and it avoids any unnecessary fluff. Every part earns its place, making it effective in communicating the essential purpose with no waste.

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 the low complexity (only 3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and the presence of a complete schema, the description covers the main functional scope: it lists pull requests and indicates the return contents. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or other edge behaviors, but for a simple list operation this is not a fatal gap. It is appropriately complete for a tool with this complexity, though it could benefit from a note about filtering defaults or pagination, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: every parameter (state, repo_slug, workspace) has its own description. The tool description adds no extra information about these parameters. According to scoring guidance, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, and indeed the description does little to enhance parameter understanding. Therefore, the score is 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List pull requests in a repository'. It also lists the returned fields (titles, authors, states, descriptions). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the noun phrase 'pull requests' is specific enough to distinguish it from list_workspaces, list_branches, etc. Since it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, it fits a 4.

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. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose it over similar list tools. There is only an implicit understanding that it lists pull requests, but no explicit use cases or when-not-to-use. Given the absence of usage guidance, this scores a 2.

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