gh_list_prs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaning of the 'state' parameter (open, closed, all) and its default, which is useful but does not disclose beyond annotations, such as pagination behavior or return format.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded purpose, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds meaningful information about the tool's function or the state parameter.

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 an output schema, so return values are presumably defined there. The description covers the main purpose and state parameter but lacks details on pagination (per_page) and any guidance on when to use it relative to siblings, leaving moderate gaps in context.

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 must compensate. It explains only 'state' with valid values and default, but leaves 'owner', 'repo', and 'per_page' undefined. This partial coverage is insufficient to fully understand the parameters.

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 tool's function: 'List pull requests in a repository.' It distinguishes from siblings like gh_get_pr (single PR), gh_create_pr, and gh_list_issues by specifying the resource (pull requests) and scope (repository).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without mentioning when it should be preferred over gh_list_issues or gh_get_pr, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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