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 a read operation but does not disclose what 'details' includes (e.g., commits, reviews, files), authentication requirements, or potential errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal behavioral transparency.

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, brief sentence that earns its place, but it lacks any additional structure like parameter explanations. It is concise but at the cost of useful detail.

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 and no annotations, the description is quite sparse. It explains the tool's basic purpose but not the return payload, error conditions, or nuance like which pull request fields are returned. For a simple read tool, it is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what property names suggest ('owner', 'repo', 'pull_number'). It does not clarify formats (e.g., owner/repo names, pull number type) or relationships, so the agent must infer from names alone.

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 'Get details of a specific pull request' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pull request'), clearly indicating a read operation for a single pull request. It distinguishes from siblings like list_pull_requests and merge_pull_request, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 specific pull request's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. The sibling list_pull_requests suggests there is a list variant, but the description doesn't contrast them, leaving some ambiguity.

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