get_pull_request

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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states a generic 'Get' operation. It does not mention that this is a read-only action, what the 'details' encompass, or any authentication/error handling considerations.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words, effectively communicating the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though its brevity limits the information delivered.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify the scope of 'details' or provide usage context, which is especially important given the numerous related pull request tools.

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 contains a single parameter with no description, and the tool description provides no explanation of what pull_request_id means or how it should be formatted. At 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely to the property name and type.

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 targets the resource 'a pull request's details', which clearly indicates a single-resource retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling list operations like get_open_pull_requests and from specialized views like get_pull_request_diff, though this differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_open_pull_requests for listing or get_pull_request_diff for code changes. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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