List Pull Requests Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing on top of that — no mention of default filtering to open PRs, pagination behavior, or ordering. With annotations present the bar is lower, yet this text contributes zero behavioral context beyond what the title already implies.

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 no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the length also reflects how little it attempts to say.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema fully documents all five parameters, so return values and parameter meaning need not be repeated. What is still missing is any routing guidance among the many sibling PR/issue list tools, which leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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%, so page, repo, owner, state, and per_page are each documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning such as default org resolution or max per_page behavior, but it does not need to.

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 ('List') and resource ('pull requests for a GitHub repository'), so an agent can tell it apart from get_pull_request_tool or create_pull_request_tool on the resource alone. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from list_pull_request_comments_tool or to note that it returns a collection rather than a single object, so sibling differentiation is implicit at best.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The description never says to use get_pull_request_tool for a single PR, nor does it explain what the state/page/per_page knobs are for in practice, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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