github_pulls_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get a pull request', implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the pull request does not exist. The description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency and fails to provide meaningful details.

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 very concise (one sentence, four words). It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, but it could be structured better by including additional context. No filler or irrelevant 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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned data contains, any prerequisites (e.g., authentication, repository access), or how to handle errors. For a simple retrieval tool, more context would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the parameter descriptions are just the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'pull_number'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, even with no extra info in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a pull request'). It is a verb+resource pair that indicates what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_pulls_list, github_pulls_get_review, etc., which also deal with pull requests, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many pull-related sibling tools (e.g., github_pulls_list, github_pulls_get_review), but no mention of when to choose this one. No exclusions or context are given.

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