List pull requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation and mentions optional filtering, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default state (OPEN), output shape, or any auth/rate-limit context. The schema provides parameter defaults, but behavioral traits remain largely unspecified.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, making it highly scannable and appropriately concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return behavior. 'Lists pull requests' only partially does this; it omits that results are paginated (given pagelen param) and what fields/objects are returned. For an agent to correctly process results, this is a notable gap. The complexity is moderate, so a few more details would be warranted.

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 baseline is 3. The description's reference to filtering by state or query string adds no new insight beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, which already explain state, query, pagelen, and fallbacks.

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 'Lists', the resource 'pull requests', and the scope 'in a repository', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get, create, update, merge, etc. It also mentions optional filters, adding operational clarity.

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 context for use is evident: it's for listing pull requests, as opposed to single-PR operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like bb_get_pull_request for a single PR, missing the higher bar for explicit exclusions.

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