List pull requests

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits like being read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination. The minimal description provides no transparency beyond the basic action.

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, which is concise but lacks essential detail. It is front-loaded but insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full capabilities.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description should provide more context about the return format, default behavior, and limitations. It only covers the basic 'list open PRs' aspect, leaving significant gaps.

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 low (33%), with only the 'repo' property described as 'owner/name'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify the format of 'repo' or the meaning of the other parameters.

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 it lists pull requests for a repository, which is a specific action. However, it only mentions 'open' pull requests, while the schema allows filtering by other states (closed, merged, all). This inaccuracy slightly reduces clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites or situations where this tool is preferred over other tools (e.g., gh or other listing tools).

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