get_pull_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by explaining the `fields` parameter behavior and the default return content (status, reviewers, metadata). No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences: first sentence defines purpose, second sentence explains the key customization parameter. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 6 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the main behaviors: what the tool returns and how to customize. It does not detail the exact response structure or error cases, but for a read-only detail tool moderated by annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the `fields` parameter ('*all' for full response, custom subsets) and implies default output fields. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and helps the agent understand how to tailor the response.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific pull request', listing included information (status, reviewers, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests (which returns a list) and get_pull_request_activity or get_pull_request_commits (which return specific subsets).

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 the tool is for fetching a single PR's details but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., 'Use this for a single PR; use list_pull_requests for a list'). With many sibling tools, some guidance would be beneficial, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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