List pull requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it lists PRs, with no mention of pagination, default limits, filtering behavior, or side effects. It does not disclose the return format, whether it returns summaries or full details, or what happens with no parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that is efficient and front-loaded. It does not waste words and gets to the point immediately. However, it is so brief that it omits essential details, but for conciseness alone it earns a 4 for not being verbose.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is clearly incomplete. It fails to explain return format, default behavior, or how to use the many filter parameters. The agent would have to rely on parameter names and external knowledge, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 only 22%, with only project and repositoryId described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information; it vaguely references 'repository or project' but leaves the other 7 parameters (top, skip, status, creatorId, reviewerId, sourceRefName, targetRefName) entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The agent must guess their meaning from names alone.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'pull requests', and the scope 'in a repository or project'. This distinguishes it from single-PR retrieval tools like get_pull_request, and the resource is unambiguous. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention filtering capabilities, but the core purpose is fully clear.

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 its use for listing multiple pull requests, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_pull_request or other list tools. With many sibling tools, there is no guidance on exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the intended scope.

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