tea_prs_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List pull requests' and does not disclose defaults like state=open, limit=30, or pagination behavior. No safety or side-effect information is given beyond the implicit read-only nature of listing.

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 sentence with no redundant words, making it perfectly concise. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits that repo can be overridden, that state defaults to open, and what the response contains. The schema fills some gaps, but the description should provide the surrounding context for correct invocation.

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 33% (repo has a description, limit and state do not). The tool description adds no parameter semantics, failing to explain limit constraints or allowed state values. It only hints at the repo parameter via 'current repository'.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'pull requests', with scope 'current repository'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tea_issues_list and tea_pr_view. However, the phrase 'current repository' is slightly misleading since the repo parameter allows listing PRs from any specified repository.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention filtering options such as state or limit. There is no reference to tea_pr_view for viewing details or tea_issues_list for issues, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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