Get pull request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing that the result bundles reviewers, linked work items and changed files, but says nothing about permissions, visibility restrictions, or not-found behavior for an open-world read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the payload with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by naming the associated data the caller receives.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully sketches the return payload (reviewers, work items, changed files), but with three required parameters and two of them undocumented it stops short of being sufficient. It is serviceable for a simple read tool but leaves gaps around identifier semantics and lookup failure.

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 only 33% – 'repository' and 'id' have no descriptions. The description adds no meaning about what any parameter expects (e.g. numeric PR id scoping), so the coverage gap is not compensated for. Only 'project' is documented, and that is in the schema, not the description.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('pull request') with scope narrowed to 'one', which implicitly distinguishes it from list_pull_requests. It also enumerates the associated data returned (reviewers, linked work items, changed files), so an agent knows this is a single-item detail fetch rather than a list.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching a single PR by project/repository/id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_pull_requests, nor any prerequisite or failure-mode guidance. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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