list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions filterability by state and branch, which is already visible in the schema, and omits details like pagination, ordering, default behavior, or return format. This adds no behavioral transparency beyond the structured fields.

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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and filtering capability in a clear, efficient manner.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention what the response contains, whether results are paginated, or how the limit parameter affects the output. For a list operation with several parameters, this leaves important gaps for an agent to know what to expect.

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 high (most parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of state and branch filtering adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already documents. It does not clarify the 'limit' parameter or the distinction between base and head branches beyond their schema descriptions.

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 'List pull requests in a repo' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions filtering by state and branch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues and get_pull_request, which target different resources or operations.

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 use when listing pull requests, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or exclude other tools. No comparison with get_pull_request or list_issues is given, so the guidance is only implicit.

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