list_open_prs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function; it omits details like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, and whether the list is limited (e.g., first 30 PRs).

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every element serves a purpose: action, resource, scope, and intended use.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core context. It lacks details on pagination, authentication, and whether the list is exhaustive, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'owner' and 'repo'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('open pull requests'), and the scope ('for a GitHub repo'). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like 'review_pr' or 'get_pr_diff' by framing the output as a basis for deciding which to review.

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 phrase 'so you can decide which to review' implies a use case (preparation for review), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when authentication is needed, or pagination limits.

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