get-pull-requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error handling, which are critical for a data retrieval tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of retrieving pull requests (which often involves filtering, pagination, and authentication) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, error cases, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for effective tool use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters like 'repositoryId', 'status', 'createdBy', and 'top' are well-documented there. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capabilities, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('pull requests from Azure DevOps repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get-work-items' or 'get-builds' that might also retrieve Azure DevOps data, missing explicit distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for filtering, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get-work-items' for different data types, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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