list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and includes a docs link, but does not mention that the tool is read-only, returns a list of PR summaries, or has any pagination or rate-limit characteristics. The description fails to disclose any behaviors beyond the literal action.

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 sentence followed by a documentation link. It is extremely concise, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, and with no annotations the description is quite sparse. It does not clarify the nature of the return value (e.g., a list of PR summaries rather than full PR details), nor does it offer context about how this tool compares with siblings. The one-sentence description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and behavior.

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 schema includes descriptions for 7 of 9 parameters, including filtering by base, head, state, and sort fields. Missing descriptions for page and per_page are relatively self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the schema covers most of the semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high 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 and resource: 'List pull requests in a GitHub repository.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_pull_request or list_issues, though the name and scope make the purpose apparent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pull_request or list_issues. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be preferable. The absence of any usage direction leaves the agent without decision support.

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