list_pull_requests

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return fields (id, title, status, web_url) and parameter effects, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. It adds value but is not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a return summary, and a parameter list. It is concise (5 lines plus list) and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (7 required parameters), the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type summary adequately. Missing pagination or ordering details, but these are acceptable for a listing tool with an output 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters in an Args section with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional GUID', 'PR status filter (default "all")'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and names.

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 starts with 'List pull requests matching search criteria,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pull_request' (single PR) and 'create_pull_request' (creation).

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 by stating it lists pull requests with filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use or why to choose this over similar listing tools among the 44 siblings.

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