github_get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the retrieval purpose and discloses nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or return characteristics beyond the implied read-only nature.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition is largely complete enough to invoke correctly. It could add a bit more context about what details are returned or when to prefer it over sibling PR tools.

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 100%, so both parameters (repository and pullNumber) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (獲取) and resource (特定 Pull Request 的詳細資訊), making clear it retrieves details for one PR. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool github_get_pull_requests by saying '特定', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. The phrase '特定 Pull Request' implies retrieving a single PR's details, but the agent receives no explicit guidance such as preferring github_get_pull_requests for listings.

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