List Pull Requests Tool

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 discloses nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, auth requirements, or default filtering. The schema hints at pagination via page/per_page defaults, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and schema coverage is complete. But for a read tool with zero annotations, the description should still cover auth requirements and pagination semantics; it says nothing, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 all five parameters (repo, owner, state, page, per_page) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the state filter values. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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') scoped to a GitHub repository, which cleanly separates it from the singular get_pull_request_tool. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from related siblings such as search_issues_tool or list_issues_tool beyond the resource noun.

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, no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_pull_request_tool for a single PR), and no stated prerequisites such as authentication or required org context. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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