list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It specifies the return format and parameters but does not confirm read-only behavior or side effects. The disclosure is adequate but lacks completeness.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides actionable details, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes the return fields (number, title, state, etc.). It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output format. Missing error handling or pagination details, but sufficient for a simple list operation.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds that 'limit' defaults to 100 and states 'owner' and 'name' are required, but does not explain the meaning of 'owner' and 'name' (e.g., repository identifiers). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 lists pull requests for checking before creating one or reviewing status. It mentions specific return fields and references sibling tools, making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly says when to use it ('before creating a new one, or review PR status') and references alternatives via 'See also: create_pull_request, merge_pull_request'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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