Github Get Pr Linked Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific behavior of returning auto-close issues, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like whether the list is empty if no linked issues exist, or whether it only returns issues linked via keywords. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it clearly states what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has a simple input schema (3 self-explanatory parameters) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly. A small gap is the lack of any mention of edge cases (e.g., no linked issues), but this is minor given the simplicity.

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 the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. The description does not mention repo_owner, repo_name, or pr_number at all. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory (repo owner, repo name, PR number), and the schema provides types and required status. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('issues that will be auto-closed when a pull request is merged'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like github_get_pr_content or github_get_pr_diff, which fetch different PR-related data. The title and description align well.

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 linked issues that will be auto-closed, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_get_issue or github_search_issues_prs, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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