list_pull_requests

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies this as a listing (read) operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether results are ordered. The default state 'open' is useful, but overall behavioral depth is moderate.

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 concise, using a docstring format with clear Args sections. Every sentence earns its place without fluff. Slight reduction for the verbose format (Args block could be more compact).

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, one optional with default) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe return data), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters and the basic action. Missing details about pagination or sorting are minor given the output schema.

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%, so all parameter meaning must come from the description. The description explains owner, repo, and state with default, which adds value. However, it does not clarify format nuances (e.g., owner as username vs. ID) or further constraints on state values.

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 lists pull requests for a repository, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pull_request (specific PR) and list_pr_comments (comments), but does not explicitly differentiate from list_unresolved_review_threads.

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 siblings like get_pull_request or list_pr_comments. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., repository access), nor alternatives for more specific queries.

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