list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list' without revealing defaults (e.g., state defaults to open), pagination behavior, or potential rate limits. This is insufficient for a list tool with multiple options.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is so brief it risks under-specification, but still serves the primary purpose of naming the operation.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not mention default states, pagination, sorting options, or the shape of the response. A more robust description is needed for an AI to effectively select and invoke this tool.

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 only 14% (only 'state' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, leaving owner, repo, page, per_page, sort, and direction without additional context. It merely hints at a repository but fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'List pull requests in a repository' clearly specifies the action (list) and resource (pull requests) within a repository scope. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pull_request (single PR) and create_pull_request.

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 usage for retrieving a collection of PRs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like get_pull_request for details. It does not mention filtering by state or other context, so the use case is only vaguely implied.

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