get_pull_request

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds the scoping behavior that this is a direct lookup by numeric index, which is useful but does not disclose potential edge cases like 404 behavior or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and how the pull request is identified.

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 output schema and readOnlyHint, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only getter. A brief pointer to list_pull_requests for obtaining the index would improve it, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 needed to compensate for all three parameters. It only clarifies 'index' as numeric, while owner and repo are left entirely to inference from their names without format or context details.

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 the resource ('a pull request'), and specifies the retrieval key ('by its numeric index'). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_pull_review or list_pull_requests without ambiguity.

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 the intended usage: retrieve a single pull request when its numeric index is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as list_pull_requests for finding the index first.

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