tfs_list_pull_requests

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the input schema. It fails to mention if results are paginated, what fields are returned, or any authorization needs. The description carries the full burden but adds little transparency.

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?

Two-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. First sentence states the action, second sentence gives usage hint. No unnecessary words.

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 list tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but lacks return value details (e.g., what fields are in each PR object). Contextually adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g., no format constraints or usage nuances. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it lists pull requests for a TFS repository with status filtering. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like tfs_get_pull_request (single PR) and tfs_get_pr_changes (PR changes), though no 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?

Description includes a usage hint 'Use when need to summarize open PRs for review', giving context for when to use. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the hint is helpful.

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