ado_git_get_pr

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that it is a safe read. The description adds field-level detail but not additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, rate limits). Since the annotation covers the primary behavioral aspect, a neutral score is appropriate; the description neither contradicts nor significantly extends the annotation.

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 exactly two sentences, with the primary purpose and fields listed first, followed by a routing instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with all three parameters documented and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use an alternative. Agents have everything needed to decide and invoke it correctly.

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?

All three parameters (project, repositoryId, pullRequestId) have complete descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the schema already explains their meaning. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('pull request'), and enumerates the returned fields (title, description, reviewers, branches, status). It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling tool (ado_git_get_pr_threads) by saying to use that for comments/discussions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear usage directive: use this tool for full PR details and use ado_git_get_pr_threads for comments/discussions. This explicit conditional routing directly addresses when to use this tool versus an alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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