list_pull_requests_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list', implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it supports pagination. The output schema provides return structure, so a baseline of 3 is reasonable.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no fluff. However, it could include a bit more context (e.g., filtering options) without losing conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool over similar list tools (e.g., list_issues_tool) and does not mention any behavioral constraints.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies as per guidelines.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'pull requests' with scope 'for a GitHub repository'. It is direct and unambiguous, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_tool' which retrieves a single PR.

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 vs alternatives such as search_issues_tool or list_issues_tool. It lacks any mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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