gh_pr_list

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. 'List Pull Requests' only indicates a read operation but doesn't mention authentication requirements, pagination, repository scope, or what data is returned. This is a minimal statement with no added context.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it extremely concise and easy to parse.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description is sparse. It doesn't provide context about the repository or how the list is scoped. Given the low complexity, a minimal description is acceptable, but it leaves room for more helpful details like 'lists PRs for the current GitHub repository'.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'state' parameter or its values. Although the schema defines the enum and default, the description should compensate for the lack of textual documentation but fails to do so, leaving the agent to rely solely on the 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 'List Pull Requests' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gh_pr_create and gh_pr_merge, which write/modify, though it doesn't mention any unique filtering or scope like repository context.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for read-only listing, nor does it distinguish from other listing tools like gh_issue_list or git_branch_list. The agent is left to infer usage from the name.

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