list_pull_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'fully paginated' and the default state filter of 'OPEN', which are not visible in annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or response shape, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it lists, pagination, required argument, workspace resolution, and state filtering with default. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: required argument, filtering, pagination, and default behavior. It could be more complete by explaining the workspace precedence order and repo format, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `repo` (explicit argument), `workspace` (resolved via precedence), and `state` (enum values and default). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but it doesn't detail the precedence order or the exact format of `repo` (e.g., 'workspace/repo-slug'), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists'), resource ('pull requests in a repository'), and key constraints ('fully paginated', requires explicit repo). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_pull_request (single PR) and list_repositories (repos, not 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?

Explicitly says it requires an explicit `repo` argument and resolves `workspace` via standard precedence, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a list operation.

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