get_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the name. It does not state whether this is a read-only fetch, what auth scope is required, what the response contains, or how it differs in behavior from the other PR tools.

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?

It is short, but the two tokens present are low-value: the unexplained "Extended:" prefix and the internal service method reference occupy space that could have stated the actual purpose. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only behavioral signal available, and it supplies nothing about return contents or scope. For a simple single-parameter fetch this is minimally adequate at best, and the sibling overlap is unaddressed.

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% with a single required parameter (prUrl, "PR URL"), so the schema already documents input fully. The description adds no format guidance (e.g., full URL vs. host/path), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Account view of any PR" restates the tool name without stating a clear verb+resource purpose; it is a near-tautology rather than a definition. The internal reference (SCMService/GetPullRequest) conveys nothing to an agent, and no distinction from siblings like get_pr_status, get_pr_diff, or get_diff_details is offered.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite three closely related PR/diff siblings. The agent is left to infer entirely from the name.

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