github_list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether private repos require authentication, how pagination behaves (perPage is oddly required), or what the response looks like. For a zero-annotation tool, that is a substantial gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the filter qualifier both arrive immediately. Nothing in it is padding, though the small size is in tension with the thin coverage elsewhere.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this definition leaves an agent without permissions context, return-shape expectations, or pagination semantics. Given that two of four parameters are required, the description should have done considerably more.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and barely does. It implies a repo identifier and a state filter, but never explains the owner/repo split, perPage paging, or the enum values — and it calls state "optional" while the schema marks it required, which is actively misleading.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List pull requests for a repository") with a scoping qualifier, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like github_list_issues and github_list_repos by resource type. It stops short of 5 because the scope is thin — no mention of pagination limits, sort order, or what the listing contains.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The only hint is "optionally filtered by state," but with no guidance on defaults, pagination strategy, or when to use this versus other GitHub listing tools, the agent must infer everything.

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