get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Get[s] information' and returns 'PR info', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for args and returns. There's no wasted text, and each sentence adds value. However, the structure could be more integrated (e.g., combining purpose with usage) for optimal flow.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed return values (only high-level info like 'state, author, reviewers, and merge status'). For a simple read tool, it's adequate but has clear gaps in providing a full picture 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by listing args ('repo_slug', 'pr_id') and their purpose ('Repository slug', 'Pull request ID'), but doesn't explain format (e.g., string patterns for repo_slug) or constraints. It compensates slightly but not fully for the low coverage, aligning with the baseline for partial compensation.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get information about a pull request' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pull request'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_pull_requests' (which lists multiple) and 'get_pr_diff' (which gets diff content), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_commit' or 'get_branch' in terms of resource type, which slightly limits clarity.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list_pull_requests' for multiple PRs or 'get_pr_diff' for diff details, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts (e.g., after listing PRs). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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