pull_requests_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'list' and gives no information about pagination, the meaning of the 'include' parameter, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with optional parameters.

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 a single sentence with no filler, earning its place by stating the core functionality. It is appropriately concise, though it lacks detail, which is a completeness matter.

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 three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the optional parameters (limit, include) or any behavioral aspects like ordering or filtering. The presence of an output schema is not enough to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 0% coverage with no parameter descriptions, and the description adds no value for 'limit' or 'include'. It only implies 'repository_id' via 'for a repository'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'pull requests' with a repository scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like repositories_list or reviews_list. It is specific and 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 implies usage for listing pull requests for a given repository but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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