list_github_pull_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'lists' without mentioning default state filtering, pagination, or authorization requirements. The state parameter with default 'open' is not disclosed, leaving important behavioral traits undocumented.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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?

The tool has two parameters and an output schema, but the description is extremely sparse. It lacks essential context such as how to specify the repository (full name vs. URL), the effect of the state parameter, and any pagination or sorting details. The description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied situations.

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%, so the description should explain parameters. It only hints at repo_name through 'given repository' but entirely ignores the state parameter, its possible values, and its default. This provides minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 action (lists), the resource (pull requests), and the scope (for a given repository). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_github_issues by specifically mentioning pull requests.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_github_issues or create_github_pull_request. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'lists' and the resource, with no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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