get_pull_request

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does this well for a read operation: the verb 'get' implies no mutation, it returns a normalized mapping with named fields, and it explains that raw includes the provider payload. It does not discuss not-found or auth failure behavior, but those are not critical for this simple getter.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or duplication.

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 getter with four flat parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines each argument, states the normalized return shape, explains the raw flag, and gives an input/output example. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call the tool 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?

Input-schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must supply meaning. It provides short glosses for all four parameters and reinforces them with a concrete GitHub example. It stops short of enumerating valid provider values or repo formats, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 opens with 'Get one pull request,' a specific verb and resource, and the word 'one' distinguishes it from list-style siblings like list_pull_requests. The Args/Returns sections make the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Get one pull request' and the pull_request_id parameter: the agent can infer this is for fetching a single PR by ID. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_pull_requests, get_pull_request_diff, or update_pull_request, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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