list_pull_requests

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

The description explains that the returned objects are Gitea PullRequest objects with richer information, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=true indicates read-only, description says list). The pagination behavior is left to schema, but the return type difference is disclosed.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical distinction. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists (not shown) and schema coverage is 100%, the description is nearly complete. It addresses the return type difference and optional filtering, though it could mention default sort order or pagination behavior more explicitly. Still, it adequately covers the tool's context.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds value by explaining the return type difference, which is related to the overall behavior rather than individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides some additional context but not per-parameter enrichment.

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 pull requests in a repository' with an optional filter parameter, distinguishing it from siblings like get_pull_request (single PR) and list_issues (which returns different objects). The added note about Gitea PullRequest objects versus Issue-style provides a specific differentiation.

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 that when richer head/base/mergeable info is needed, this tool is preferable over list_issues with type=pulls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to get_pull_request. It provides clear context for when to use this endpoint over alternatives.

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