get_pull_request

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

The description implies a read operation ('Get'), so it is likely non-destructive. However, without annotations, the description does not explicitly state behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It is minimally transparent.

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, concise sentence that is to the point. While it could include more detail, it is not overly verbose and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not clarify what 'details' includes, which could lead to uncertainty. With sibling tools offering specific data, this description is somewhat incomplete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 pull request details' clearly indicates the action (get) and the resource (pull request details). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_diff or get_pull_request_comments, which also retrieve pull request information. The term 'details' is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, users are not told that get_pull_request_comments is better for comments or get_diff for diffs. This lack of usage context reduces clarity.

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