ado_list_pull_requests

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

The description indicates a read-only operation (listing) with no destructive hints. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but does not elaborate on rate limits, auth requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and scope. Every sentence adds value with 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?

The description covers the core functionality but lacks details about the return format (list of PR objects) and does not mention that 'top' controls pagination. For a 7-parameter list tool, this is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'search by repository or project'), but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 verb 'Lista' (List) and resource 'Pull Requests', and distinguishes by mentioning optional filters and scope (by repository or project-wide). This differentiates it from siblings like ado_get_pull_request (single PR) and ado_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 listing with optional filters and scope selection, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ado_get_pull_request. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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