list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the default state filter and accepted state values, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether workspace/repo are effectively required despite empty defaults in the schema, nor mention pagination or ordering behavior. This is a minor but notable gap for a read-only listing tool.

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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args block. Every piece of information earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema covers return values, and the description covers the core function and parameters. However, it omits important invocation details such as whether workspace/repo are required in practice, any pagination/limits, or how the list is ordered. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has zero descriptions and no enums, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: workspace slug, repo slug, and state with its allowed values (OPEN, MERGED, DECLINED, SUPERSEDED) and default. This provides all necessary semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'List pull requests', a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also notes the default open-state behavior, which distinguishes it from single-PR tools like get_pull_request and from PR-comment tools like list_pr_comments.

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 clear invocation context by listing the required conceptual arguments and the default state ('Default shows open PRs'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the listing intent is unambiguous.

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