getPullRequests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description only restates state filtering and pagination, which are already in the schema. It adds no behavioral context such as default state behavior when the parameter is omitted, whether results are ordered, or whether closed includes merged PRs.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the opening clause. However, the final two clauses ('state filters by open/closed', 'Supports page/per_page') largely duplicate what the input schema already documents, slightly reducing the value they earn.

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 simple list endpoint, the description covers purpose, state filter, and pagination, which is adequate for basic invocation. But with no output schema, it omits useful context like default state behavior when omitted, response shape, and whether pagination is required to retrieve all results in a large repository.

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. The description mentions state filtering and page/per_page, but these add no meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions ('Filter by PR state', 'Items per page', '1-based page number'). The description neither compensates for gaps nor adds insight.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('pull requests'), and scope ('of a repository'), which clearly conveys the operation. The plural 'pull requests' implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling getPullRequest, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using getPullRequest for a single PR, getPullRequestActivity for activity, or any condition for selecting state filters. The state and pagination mentions are parameter hints, not usage guidance.

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