list_pull_requests

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'allowed repository' scoping context, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination, or whether it lists PRs across all states or just open by default.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately brief, though it could use the space for additional context given the low schema coverage.

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 only 20% schema coverage, 5 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details about state filtering or pagination, the single-sentence description leaves the agent to guess at key semantics. The default state='open' behavior is not surfaced, and the 'allowed repository' qualification is vague about which repositories are permitted.

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 only 20% (only 'repository' has a description: 'owner/name format'). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting the repository. Parameters like account, state, limit, and hostname are undocumented in both schema and description, requiring the agent to infer their meaning.

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 states it lists pull requests in a repository with a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish this from the many sibling pull-request tools (list_pull_request_files, list_pull_request_checks, list_pull_request_reviews), though the name itself makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that it returns only open PRs by default (from the schema default), nor how it differs from get_pull_request (single PR) or how state filtering works. The phrase 'allowed repository' hints at permission constraints but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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