bb_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful specifics: OPEN is the default state, results are paginated, and projectKey is case-sensitive and must be uppercase. However, it does not disclose the return shape, pagination parameter semantics, or API limitations beyond what the schema already mentions.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: purpose, filters, pagination, and a critical case-sensitivity warning are all included in a compact, front-loaded structure. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call-time facts: what it lists, available filters, default state, pagination, and the key projectKey case constraint. It is slightly incomplete because start/limit semantics are not explained and the returned PR object shape is not indicated, but the core invocation is well supported.

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?

The schema already documents 6 of 8 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds a pagination mention and reinforces the uppercase projectKey rule, but it does not explain start/limit or add substantial meaning to the filters beyond the schema. This aligns with a baseline 3 given strong schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'List pull requests in a repository,' and then names the available filters (state, author, reviewer, text match). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_request or bb_merge_pull_request.

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 communicates clear context: this is for listing/searching PRs with filters and pagination. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this over bb_get_pull_request for a single PR, or provides exclusions/alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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