pull_requests_get

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavior: it fetches live data via GitHub search and applies staleness logic based on updated_at and stale_after_days. The phrase 'marks PRs stale' is slightly ambiguous, but in a read-only list context it clearly means computed labeling rather than a mutation, so there is no contradiction.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only high-value behavioral details about the live snapshot and staleness calculation. Every word 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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the resource, the selection criteria, the data source, and the one configurable behavior. There is nothing an agent needs to know in order to invoke it correctly that is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the only parameter, stale_after_days. It does so by defining staleness as updated_at being older than that number of days, which gives the agent a clear semantic meaning. It does not state bounds or exclusivity, but the default is in the schema and the integer meaning is clear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List open GitHub pull requests you authored or were asked to review.' It clearly scopes the tool's behavior and distinguishes it from notification-based data by noting it fetches a live snapshot via GitHub search. No sibling tool appears to serve the same purpose, so the intent 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 tells the agent when to use the tool: whenever open PRs authored by or assigned to the user need to be listed. It also provides important context by clarifying this is a live search snapshot, not a notifications sync. It does not name an alternative tool, but none of the siblings directly compete, so the guidance is sufficient.

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