list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list', implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default state (open), sorting, or the nature of the response. This is inadequate for a tool that returns a list with multiple parameters.

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 sentence, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is relevant and there is no filler.

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 description, combined with the schema, is minimally viable. It tells the agent what the tool does and the schema provides parameter details. However, without an output schema or any behavioral notes, the agent lacks information about return format, pagination, and default state. It is adequate but not complete for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations.

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 57%, with descriptions for owner, repo, base, and head. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, the schema itself provides reasonable detail (including defaults and enum for state), so the description does not need to compensate heavily. The missing semantics for page, per_page, and state are partially covered by default values and constraints.

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 'Lista los pull requests de un repositorio' clearly states the action (list) and resource (pull requests of a repository). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pull_request or list_issues, which is a minor gap.

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. There is no mention of filtering capabilities, default state, or that search_issues might be more appropriate for complex queries. The description simply states the action without context.

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