List PRs without reviewer

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and explains the hours filter, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or the top parameter's role. Key behaviors are hinted but 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 two sentences plus examples, with no redundant text. Every sentence serves a purpose: it states what the tool does, provides usage examples, and explains parameter behavior. Highly efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of PR objects, fields). Context about response structure, error handling, or limitations is missing, making it incomplete for an agent.

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%. The description adds significant context for the 'hours' parameter with concrete examples and behavior on omission. The 'project' and 'top' parameters are not elaborated, but the schema already covers them adequately.

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 tool finds 'open pull requests that have no reviewer assigned', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes this from the sibling list_pull_requests by focusing on unreviewed PRs.

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 provides explicit use cases (e.g., 'which PRs have no reviewer?') and explains the hours parameter. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools for cases when reviewers are needed.

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