list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, limits, or what 'analyzed' means. The tool's behavior beyond the basic listing is opaque.

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 a single 6-word sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks important details that could be included without sacrificing brevity, making it feel under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain return values, pagination, or the 'analyzed' state. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool has one required parameter (project_key). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name; it does not explain the format, source, or constraints of project_key.

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 states 'List pull requests analyzed for a project', providing a clear verb (list) and resource (pull requests) scoped to a project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component_measures which are not about PRs. However, 'analyzed' is slightly ambiguous as it may imply a specific state of the PRs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any context for usage. The description simply states what it does without any comparative or situational advice.

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