get_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description adds context by listing the contained fields (metadata, branches, reviewers, linked work items) and discloses the org-wide resolution behavior and repoId flexibility. It lacks explicit side-effect or error information, but the read-only nature is implied by '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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence adds a crucial resolution detail without verbosity; every phrase earns its place.

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 two-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description provides the essential return scope and a key resolution caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't describe the output structure or error conditions.

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 schema covers both parameters, and the description adds extra meaning to repoId by noting it may be a GUID or name. This goes beyond the schema's type/description, providing actionable resolution semantics.

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 names the resource (pull request) with a clear scope: metadata, branches, reviewers, and linked work items. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_pull_requests and get_pull_request_comments.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied by requiring prId and the verb 'Get', but the description doesn't reference sibling tools or criteria for choosing this over search_pull_requests.

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