Get pull request details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the read-only nature, and the description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: the 'description' field is the change's claim, which is what reviews measure against. It also lists expected return fields, helping the agent understand what data will come back.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, the second adds meaningful semantic context about the 'description' field. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 key returned fields and clarifying the meaning of 'description.' It is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only tool, though it could more explicitly frame this as a return value list.

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 descriptions cover repo_slug and workspace, but pull_request_id has no description beyond its name. The description's 'one pull request' implies selection by ID but does not explicitly explain the parameter. Added value over the schema is minimal.

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: 'Title, description, author, state, and branches for one pull request.' The explicit singular scope 'for one pull request' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests and get_diff.

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 description implies usage when a single pull request's details are needed and mentions 'one pull request,' but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It provides clear context but no exclusions.

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