github_get_pr_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the schema parameter description warns that the full diff may be large, but the tool description itself does not explicitly state that it does not modify the PR, does not mention authentication requirements (though the sibling github_set_token hints at this), or mention rate limits.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose and lists the key components without any filler. It is efficiently sized for the information it conveys.

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?

With no output schema, the description must indicate what the tool returns; it lists the main components (files changed, commits, optional diff) which is sufficient for a read operation. It does not describe the exact response structure or additional PR metadata, but this is a reasonable level of completeness for a git PR details tool.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including the include_diff flag and its potential size. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only mentions 'optionally the full diff' without further syntax or usage details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific pull request'), and explicitly lists the included content (files changed, commits, optionally the full diff). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_pull_requests (which lists PRs) and github_get_pr_comments (which gets 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?

The description indicates the tool is for retrieving details of a single, specific pull request, contrasting with the sibling tool github_list_pull_requests which is for listing multiple PRs. However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for comments or checks).

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