listPullRequests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic listing behavior. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, that results are paginated via page/pagelen, that state defaults to OPEN, or what the returned pull request objects look like. Important operational behavior is left undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though it is so brief that behavioral and usage context must be gathered from the schema and sibling tool names.

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 simple list tool, the schema fully documents all parameters, including default state and page size cap, which covers the invocation essentials. However, the absence of annotations, an output schema, and any mention of return contents or pagination behavior leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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 100%, so the baseline 3 applies; each parameter has a description, and the state parameter has an enum. The tool description adds no semantic value beyond naming 'filtered by state,' but with the schema fully covering all five parameters, no compensation is required.

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 a specific action ('List'), a resource ('pull requests'), and a filtering criterion ('by state'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like getPullRequest, but the plural 'pull requests' and the 'list' verb imply a collection operation.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as getPullRequest or getPullRequestActivity, nor on when the optional workspace/repo_slug defaults are sufficient. The only usage signal is the generic purpose statement, so an agent gets no exclusions or selection criteria.

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