gh_list_prs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the state parameter values and default, which is mild contextual value, but it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or repository access requirements.

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?

Extremely brief and front-loaded, only two short sentences. It avoids wordiness, though the state line is a fragment. Still, every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description doesn't need to detail returns. Missing per_page behavior and pagination guidance, plus the lack of sibling differentiation, leave some gaps but the tool is simple enough to be adequately described at a minimum level.

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 schema has no descriptions at all (0% coverage), so the description's note on state values ('open, closed, or all') adds some meaning. However, owner/repo and per_page are not explained, and their semantics are only inferred from titles and types.

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?

Clearly states 'List pull requests in a repository,' which is a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like gh_list_issues or gh_get_pr, the resource and action are unambiguous.

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 such as gh_get_pr for a single PR, or gh_list_issues for issues. The description provides no exclusions or context beyond the basic action.

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