get_pull_requests

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, pagination defaults, or if all parameters are optional. The agent is left to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 concise sentence without redundancy. It could be slightly more informative but is not overly verbose 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?

Given 11 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks information on pagination behavior (default count/offset), how to uniquely specify a repository, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning, such as relationships between projectId/projectKey or repoId/repoName, or default values for offset and count.

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 clearly states it returns a list of pull requests for a repository, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_pull_request (singular) or get_pull_requests_count, which could cause confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_pull_request for a single PR or get_pull_requests_count for just the count. It also fails to mention any preconditions or context for usage.

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