pull_request_assigned_to_me

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint:true) already indicate safe read operation; description adds precision about reviewer behavior per platform. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with core action. Every word adds necessary information.

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?

Missing clarification on whether search spans all repositories or requires repository_name for some providers. No mention of pagination despite 'page' parameter. Could better describe scope given complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description's mention of 'reviewer' being limited to github/gitlab repeats schema info, adding minimal new value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Search pull requests' specifying the role constraints (author or assignee). Distinct from siblings like 'pull_request_get_detail' and 'pull_request_create'.

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?

Provides guidance on using the reviewer parameter with platform restrictions ('github and gitlab only'). Lacks explicit direction on when to choose this over similar tools like 'issues_assigned_to_me' or 'pull_request_get_comments'.

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