list_work_package_github_pull_requests

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

Adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: the endpoint is unpaginated (no offset/limit), returns everything in one call, and an empty result conflates 'nothing linked' with 'GitHub App integration not configured'. This is exactly the kind of trap an agent needs disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then supplies only the two non-obvious facts (unpaginated, empty-result ambiguity). Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description still communicates return cardinality and the empty-case meaning, which is the highest-risk unknown. It does not describe the fields of a returned pull request, but that is a minor residual gap for a simple read tool.

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% and the work_package_id description already covers both integer ID and display-ID forms, so the description correctly defers to the schema. It adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is the baseline case.

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 and resource: list GitHub pull requests linked to a work package, with the scope ('all linked') made explicit. It is distinguishable from get_github_pull_request and the GitLab siblings by resource name, but no sibling is named directly as an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing — call this to enumerate PRs attached to a given work package — but it never states when to prefer it over get_github_pull_request or how to proceed when the result is empty beyond noting the ambiguity.

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