Github List Open Issues Prs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds the key behavioral constraint that the search is fixed to is:open, and clarifies that closed/merged items are not retrievable. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful context about the tool's fixed filtering behavior.

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 compact, with the primary action stated first, followed by the constraint and the alternative, then a workflow pointer. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of a full input schema and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, its main limitation, the appropriate alternative, and a recommended workflow. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, including enums and defaults. The description adds minimal parameter-related semantics beyond noting that certain qualifiers are not exposed, which is more about usage than parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the weight, and the description does not introduce new parameter-level 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 clearly states the tool lists open pull requests or issues, and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling tool github_search_issues_prs by noting the fixed is:open filter and that closed/merged items are out of scope. This distinguishes it from alternatives without needing to inspect the schema.

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 explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent to use github_search_issues_prs for closed/merged items and for any qualifiers this tool does not expose, and it points to a workflow convention via github_get_skill('issue-management'). This fully addresses when and when not to use this tool.

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