List PRs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., default PR state, sorting, or repository prerequisites). The phrase 'for an agent's git repo' merely restates the agent_id parameter, adding no new information.

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 of eight words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains zero filler and is perfectly concise for a simple list operation.

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 read-only list tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It states the purpose and scope, and since no output schema exists, the phrase 'List pull requests' sufficiently implies the return of PR data. No additional information is needed for this complexity level.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter (agent_id) with a clear description ('Agent id'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('List pull requests') and scopes it to 'an agent's git repo.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_git_list_commits and lyzr_git_list_branches. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context: use this when you need to list PRs for a specific agent's git repo. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it. No exclusions are stated.

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