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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List pull requests in a repository' without mentioning the default state filter (OPEN), pagination behavior, or what fields are returned. It does not disclose any edge cases, rate limits, or response structure, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it borders on under-specification. It essentially paraphrases the tool name with minimal added value. For a tool with three parameters (especially a state filter and pagination), this is too sparse to be considered appropriately structured, though it is not wordy.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only provides the bare action. It does not explain the meaning of state values, pagination defaults, or expected return values. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without relying entirely on the schema.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (repository, state, page), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It neither contradicts nor enriches the parameter info.

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 (list) and resource (pull requests in a repository). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_pull_request (which retrieves a single PR) and list_repositories (lists repos), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The verb+resource+scope is specific enough to understand the core function.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_pull_request should be used for a single PR, nor does it address filtering by state or pagination. Users are left to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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