List open pull requests

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add the 'open' filter and an attempted pipeline-ref/index relationship, which is behavioral context, though its ambiguity limits the value.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second half is malformed ('with the index a pipeline ref...') and would likely confuse an agent, so the sentence does not fully earn its place in its current form.

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?

With an output schema, strong annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description does not need to explain return values or permission details. Still, the key extra context about how PR indices relate to pipeline refs is delivered unclearly, and no usage boundaries are stated.

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?

All three parameters are already described in the schema, so the 100% schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail; pagination and repo_id resolution are handled by the schema's own descriptions.

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 opening clause names a specific action and resource: 'Lists the open pull requests of a repository,' which clearly separates it from repository and pipeline list tools. However, the appended clause about 'the index a pipeline ref ... refers to' is grammatically tangled and leaves the reader uncertain about what exactly is being indexed.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this over alternatives such as list_pipelines, get_pipeline, or list_repository_branches. There are no exclusions or explicit use cases; the only context is that the tool lists open pull requests, making usage inferable but not explicit.

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