get_dashboard_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the meaningful behavioral trait of aggregating across all projects/repositories and the authenticated-user scope, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination semantics beyond schema defaults (default state=OPEN, limit=25), or return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The final sentence ('without needing to specify each one') partially restates the 'across all repositories' claim already made in sentence one, costing a little efficiency.

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?

For a 7-parameter, all-optional read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to reach for it. It omits default values (state=OPEN, limit=25, order=NEWEST) and pagination guidance, but those live in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by tying the role values to user intent (review = REVIEWER, authored = AUTHOR, participating = PARTICIPANT), clarifying why an agent would pick each enum value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List pull requests') plus a scope qualifier ('across all repositories for the authenticated user'), which separates it from the per-repository list_pull_requests sibling. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear usage context mapping to the role enum: 'see PRs you need to review, PRs you authored, or PRs you are participating in.' It does not state when NOT to use this tool or name the alternative (list_pull_requests for a single repo), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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