github_find_prs_for_issue

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 adds the allowlist constraint, but does not explain the meaning of 'linked', whether the operation is read-only, or any pagination/return behavior beyond what the output schema provides.

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 two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the primary action immediately.

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 is simple and the output schema covers return values, but the description lacks context on what constitutes a 'linked' PR and any prerequisites beyond the allowlist. The allowlist constraint is helpful but the overall behavioral context is minimal.

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?

Both parameters have no schema descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not elaborate on their meaning or constraints. The parameter names 'repo_slug' and 'issue_number' are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value to compensate for the missing schema details.

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 'Find' with a clear resource 'PRs linked to an issue', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_get_issue and github_open_pr by focusing on the linkage between PRs and an issue.

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 usage context (when you need PRs linked to a given issue) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not. The allowlist constraint is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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