get_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' and omits any mention of read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found). This is a minimal disclosure that falls short for an agent.

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 one concise sentence of seven words, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to scan. Perfectly appropriate in size.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are presumably covered), the description lacks essential context for correct tool selection and invocation. There are no annotations, no parameter semantics, and no usage guidelines, leaving the agent with only the tool name and a minimal description. For a simple tool this is still insufficient to fully understand behavior and prerequisites.

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 does not describe any of the three parameters (owner, repo, pull_number). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific pull request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pull_requests (specific vs. list) and get_issue (pull request vs. issue). The purpose is unambiguous and easily understood.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'specific' implies it is for a single pull request, it does not mention the sibling analyze_pull_request or any exclusion criteria. An agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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