get_inbox_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source. It discloses the scope (inbox, assigned reviewer) but does not mention ordering, response format, or whether only open PRs are returned. These omissions leave some behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple read tool with only two optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose. However, since there is no output schema, the response format is unstated, which could be supplemented for full completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (limit and start), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource scope ('pull requests in the authenticated user's inbox where they are assigned as a reviewer'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests and get_pull_request.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving the user's review queue, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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