gitee_get_pull

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

Without annotations, the description must describe behavioral traits. 'Get' implies a read operation, but no details are given about authentication, rate limits, response format, or idempotency. The description is minimal and adds no value beyond the verb.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the nature of the response, any prerequisites, or how the parameters relate to the operation. The description lacks essential context for an AI agent.

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 descriptions for each parameter (owner, repo, number). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Get a single pull request' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('single pull request'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pulls (which retrieves multiple PRs) and create_pull (which creates a PR).

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. Sibling tools include list_pulls, get_pull_comment, merge_pull, etc., but the description offers no context for selection.

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