Pull request detail

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a valuable behavioral detail: the diff is truncated past the context limit and the truncation is explicitly reported. It also warns that include_diff can be large, which helps agents anticipate cost.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter/return summaries and a practical tip. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact return fields and noting the optional diff plus its truncation behavior. Combined with the fully documented input schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by explaining the include_diff tradeoff and the diff truncation behavior. It contextualizes when to use the boolean parameter without merely repeating the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a pull request' with a detailed field list covering description, merge state, statistics, and optional diff. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like forgejo_list_pull_requests and forgejo_get_issue.

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 tip about leaving include_diff=false for status checks provides concrete context-saving guidance, and the return-field list makes the intended use case clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the tool's purpose is unambiguous enough.

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