get_pull_requests_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic return of a count but does not explain how the various optional filters combine, what the default behavior is with no parameters, or whether authentication or rate limits apply. The phrase 'for a repository' is reductive given the schema allows filtering by projects, assignees, statuses, etc.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Returns count of pull requests for a repository.' It is concise with no wasted words. However, for a tool with 8 optional parameters, the structure could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and fails to explain the default behavior (e.g., what is counted when no filters are provided), how parameters scope the count, or the relationship to get_pull_requests. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions; it does not clarify relationships or required combinations among the parameters.

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 the tool returns a count of pull requests for a repository, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_pull_requests (list) or mention the filtering capabilities implied by the schema, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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_requests for listing PRs or count_issues for counting issues. It also does not explain when to use the optional filters or any prerequisites, leaving the user without context for selection.

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