github.get_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly which data will be returned (title, state, author, stats, head/base refs), making the read-only behavior clear. It omits details like authentication or error behavior, but those are less critical for a simple GET.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Get full detail'), and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose. There is zero filler or 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 the tool's low complexity, the combination of the description, the self-explanatory parameters, and the presence of an output schema is nearly complete. The description states what is returned, and the output schema defines the structure. It could mention that it returns a single pull request object, but this is not a significant gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of owner, repo, or pull_number. Although the parameter names are highly self-explanatory in the GitHub context, the description adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'pull request', and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, state, author, stats, head/base refs). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_prs (list) and get_issue (issue).

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 phrase 'full detail' implies this tool is for fetching a single pull request in depth, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like github.list_prs or github.get_issue, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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