list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any pagination behavior. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or required permissions.

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 extremely concise (two words), which is efficient but sacrifices clarity. It is front-loaded but could benefit from a slight expansion without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and absence of output schema or annotations, the description should at minimum specify the scope ('in a repository') and indicate the type of information returned. It currently lacks such context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters beyond their names. It adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to infer meaning from context alone.

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 'List pull requests' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' or 'merge_pull_request'. However, it lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., 'in a repository'), which is implied by parameters but not explicitly stated.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_pull_request' for individual PRs. The context of usage (e.g., for exploring PRs in a repo) is not mentioned.

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