List pull requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the repository scoping and status filtering, but it doesn't mention default status behavior, ordering, pagination, or any other runtime details. This is acceptable given the annotations reduce the burden, but the description still adds only modest behavioral context.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds the key modifier 'by status' without extra words. This is appropriately concise for such a simple list operation.

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?

For a straightforward read-only list operation with rich annotations and a small schema, the description is mostly complete. The presence of required project/repo parameters and the status enum in the schema fills the gaps left by the terse description. No return shape is given, but for a list operation that is reasonably inferable and the annotations already indicate a non-destructive read.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with status being the only described parameter. The description reinforces 'repository' and 'by status', but it does nothing to clarify the project parameter, which is required and undocumented in the schema. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate more than it does.

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?

Description clearly states the verb and resource: list pull requests in a repository. The phrase 'by status' adds a specific filtering dimension, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling get_pull_request because it handles multiple pull requests rather than a single one. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the resource and plural form are clear enough.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_pull_request should be used for a single pull request, or that other list tools serve different resource types. The intended usage is implied by the name and schema, but no explicit direction is provided.

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