list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions ordering (most recently updated) but doesn't disclose pagination limits, rate limit behavior, authentication requirements, or what the output format is. The max_items default of 100 is in the schema but not surfaced in the description.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, given the sparse content, it's bordering on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 8+ PR-related sibling tools to differentiate from. The description provides only the ordering detail. For a list tool with default state='open' and multiple related siblings, this is significantly under-specified.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter guidance beyond what the schema titles provide. The description doesn't explain how state, max_items, or owner interact with listing behavior. With 4 params and 0% coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states 'List pull requests ordered by most recently updated' which provides a clear verb+resource, but it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like list_pull_request_files, list_pull_request_reviews, get_pull_request, or preview_pull_request. The ordering detail is useful but the scope (which repo's PRs, filters) is underspecified.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request, preview_pull_request, or list_pull_request_files. It says nothing about what state filter is defaulting to or when one would pick this over a single-PR lookup. Sibling tools cover many PR-related operations but no differentiation is provided.

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