getPullRequest

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

The description lacks behavioral disclosure beyond the generic 'get details'. There is no mention of pagination, rate limits, or required permissions, which is critical given the absence of annotations. The input schema includes pagination params, but the description does not explain their behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's high-level purpose. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness, such as specifying what 'details' include.

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 tool's six parameters, many sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand its scope. It does not explain how to use pagination parameters or what fields are returned, leaving significant gaps.

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% coverage with clear descriptions for all six parameters, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. It provides no additional context beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'details for a specific pull request', indicating it retrieves a single PR's information. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also retrieve PR-specific data like comments or activity, leaving ambiguity about what 'details' encompasses.

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 such as getPullRequestActivity or getPullRequestComments. The description does not mention exclusions or contextual cues for selecting this tool.

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