Get GitHub Pull Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's main added behavior is the git auto-detection requirement, but that same instruction is already written into the repo/owner schema descriptions, so it adds little beyond structured data. Auth needs (GitHub token), pagination, and how many PRs are fetched are unmentioned.

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?

Two sentences, action first and the critical caveat second. No filler; the emphasis on not guessing owner/repo is well placed after the purpose statement.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the definition needn't explain return values. But for a zero-required-parameter tool with a state filter, a limit, and a use_test_db flag, the description leaves the agent without enough to choose parameter values or to distinguish this from get_github_pr.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It reinforces the owner/repo auto-detect rule (already in the schema) but says nothing about limit (default 20), state (default "open"), or use_test_db, leaving three of five parameters semantically undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List pull requests from a GitHub repository"), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_github_pr (singular) or explain how it relates to get_github_issues / get_github_context, so an agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction.

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 "IMPORTANT: Do NOT guess owner/repo" instruction gives concrete invocation guidance, but it is parameter-level guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_github_pr or get_github_context, and no exclusion conditions.

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