inspect_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of communicating behavioral characteristics. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the listed fields communicate what is returned, but the description does not mention access requirements, whether the operation is purely non-destructive, or any rate-limit or payload-size caveats.

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 with no filler. It starts with the action, names the target resource, and then lists the key data points, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with an output schema, this is a fairly complete definition, and it does not need to describe return values since an output schema exists. However, the repo format ambiguity and the absence of any explicit 'when to use' note mean an agent can still call the tool incorrectly or pick a less appropriate sibling tool.

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 0%, so the description is responsible for explaining the parameters. While 'pr_number' is reasonably self-explanatory, 'repo' is ambiguous in terms of format, the description does not specify whether it expects an owner/repo string, a repository URL, or an ID, and it adds no semantic guidance beyond a statement that it relates to a pull request.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a precise resource ('pull request details') and enumerates concrete components such as changed files, diff stats, additions/deletions, and review comments. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like inspect_issue, which handles issue details rather than PR details.

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 intended usage is implied: it should be called when a pull request's details are needed. However, the description never explicitly specifies when not to use it or how to choose between this and inspect_issue, so it falls short of giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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