list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing beyond the implied read-only nature of "list". It does not mention pagination, result limits, ordering, or any rate-limit/auth considerations that would matter for a listing endpoint.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of leaving required context unsaid.

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 read/list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the minimum is met — an agent can call it. But with no annotations, the description does not cover the default OPEN filter behavior or pagination, so it is only adequate rather than complete.

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 workspace, repo_slug, and the state enum (with default OPEN) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond "for a repository", so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("List pull requests for a repository") that lets an agent distinguish this collection-listing tool from the get_pull_request/merge_pull_request siblings. However, it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer or state that it returns multiple PRs rather than one, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_pull_request for a single PR. There is also no mention of the default state filter (OPEN) or any pagination/filtering behavior, leaving the agent to infer all usage conditions.

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