list_design_pull_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the tool requires Kiln Pro, so calls will fail without entitlement. However it omits read-only nature, pagination, ordering, and what a pull request record contains, and the middle sentence ('Kiln Pro would open the change as a reviewable pull request') describes a hypothetical product behavior rather than this call's effect.

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 one useful clause is front-loaded, but two of the four sentences are a sales pitch and a URL. The counterfactual 'would open' sentence is confusing and consumes space that belongs to parameter or filtering detail.

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?

A two-parameter filter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain filter semantics and return shape; instead the description devotes its length to upsell copy. The licensing note is the only real added context.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never names status or design_id or gives their allowed values or formats. An agent cannot tell whether status takes 'open'/'merged' or what identifier design_id expects.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('List proposed design changes'), which is clear enough to distinguish listing PRs from reviewing them. It does not reference siblings like get_design_pull_request or review_design_pull_request, so the differentiation is only implied by the word 'list'.

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?

Only 'optionally filtered' hints at usage; there is no statement of when to use this versus get_design_pull_request or the branch/version listing tools, and no prerequisites beyond the paywall. The bulk of the text is an upgrade prompt rather than guidance.

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