Show Pull Request

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

No annotations are provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), so the description carries the full burden. It states it fetches via REST API and lists returned fields, which signals a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behaviors like auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid PR numbers. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, the disclosure is minimal.

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 conveys the resource, fields returned, and default scoping. It front-loads the core purpose and adds defaults compactly. Minimal waste, though it could be more explicit about usage guidance.

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 simple read tool with only 3 params and no output schema, the description provides core purpose, returned fields, and defaults. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't disclose the actual fields/types returned beyond a few examples or error/edge-case behavior, which is a modest gap for such a tool.

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 100%, with each parameter already described (prNumber, project override, repository override). The description adds the default values for organization/project/repository, which the schema lacks, providing useful context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters and the description adds default-value enrichment but no syntax/format details.

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 has a specific verb ('取得'/'fetch') and resource ('PR 完整資訊'), listing the retrieved fields (title, sourceRefName, targetRefName, status). It names defaults for organization/project/repository which helps scoping. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like az_pr_changes or az_pr_workitems which retrieve different PR sub-information, though the resource (full PR info) is reasonably distinguishable by implication.

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 this is for fetching full/complete PR details and mentions defaults, giving some context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, nor doestate intended use cases beyond presenting details. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like az_pr_changes are provided.

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