list_pull_requests

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

Annotations already declare this to be a non-destructive read, so the description only needs incremental context. It does disclose the status taxonomy (active, completed, abandoned, all) and that created_by does a partial-name match, which is genuine behavioral information. It says nothing about pagination, default top=50, or result ordering.

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?

Extremely compact with zero filler and the resource stated first. The telegraphic fragment style and missing verb cost a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description should address top (result limit, default 50) and target_branch, and clarify that project and repository are alternatives rather than combinable. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, but the input side is under-covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the burden, and it partially does: it enumerates valid status values (the schema defines status as a bare string with no enum) and clarifies that created_by is a substring match. However, top, target_branch, and the project/repository interaction are left undocumented.

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?

"Pull requests of a project (or one repository)" names the resource and the two scoping levels, so an agent knows this is a listing operation rather than a single-PR fetch. It never explicitly contrasts with get_pull_request, and the sentence is a verbless fragment, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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: it doesn't say when to pass project vs repository, when to prefer this over get_pull_request or search tools, or that results are capped by a default of 50. The status and created_by notes are filter semantics, not usage routing.

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