Get Pull Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: pagination limits (max 10 pages or 300 items triggers warning) and default values, which goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence is necessary: purpose, parameter list, and note about warnings. No redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists (so returns are covered) and the tool has 5 parameters with 1 required, the description covers all aspects: pagination, state filtering, workspace handling, and a warning about excessive pages. It is complete for a listing 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: repo_slug as required, workspace as optional with default, state with possible values, page_size and max_pages with defaults. However, it doesn't clarify what 'configured workspace' means.

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 'Get pull requests for a repository with pagination support', using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' (singular) which would fetch a single 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 implies usage for listing pull requests with pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_pull_requests_pending_review' or 'get_pull_request'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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