bb_list_pull_requests

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's main job is to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds the useful source_branch-to-PR-number resolution behavior and clarifies that results are filterable, which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and follows with a targeted usage tip. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name appears.

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 is present, annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, and all parameters are documented in the schema, the description supplies the one missing contextual clue—how to bridge from a branch name to a PR number. This is sufficient for a list tool with optional filters.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to the source_branch parameter by explaining its practical role in resolving branch names to PR numbers. This is genuine semantic value beyond the schema's simple field description.

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 identifies the operation as listing pull requests in a repository and enumerates the available filters. It differentiates itself from fetching a single PR by using 'list', but it does not explicitly contrast itself with bb_get_pull_request or other siblings.

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 gives one strong, actionable usage guideline: use the source_branch filter to resolve a branch name to its PR number when the user references a branch instead of a PR. However, it does not state when to prefer an alternative tool such as bb_get_pull_request for single-PR details.

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