list_prs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the 'newest first' ordering behavior, but it does not disclose potential pagination, the default state filter (open), or the return shape, which would be useful given no output schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains no filler or redundant information; it efficiently conveys the action, target, and ordering.

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 read-only list tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could improve by mentioning pagination or the default state filter, but the current description plus annotations and schema provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (repo, owner, state). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the ordering qualifier, which is not tied to any schema property, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('pull requests in a repository') plus an ordering qualifier ('newest first'), making its purpose immediately clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_pr or merge_pr that operate on a single PR.

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 a clear use case—listing PRs in a repo—but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of get_pr, merge_pr, or other alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions like 'only for open PRs unless state is specified.'

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