pr_get

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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only ('Leitura') and that it returns details of a pull request, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does not mention potential caveats such as the ADO_PROJECT_ALLOWLIST restriction, error behavior, or what specific fields are returned.

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 extremely concise, with no filler words. 'Detalha um pull request' states the action and object, and 'Leitura' adds the read-only distinction. Both sentences earn their place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 get operation this is minimal but not fully complete. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide more context about return format, the optional project parameter, or how the project allowlist works. It gives the basic idea but leaves an agent under-informed about important operational details.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not explain prId, repo, or project. Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. Parameter names like prId and repo are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description contributes no value beyond the schema for the undocumented parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Detalha') and resource ('um pull request'), making its purpose clear: retrieve details for a single pull request. 'Leitura' further signals it is a read operation, which separates it from write siblings like pr_create, pr_update, and pr_comment. It does not explicitly differentiate from pr_list, but the singular 'um' implies a single-item detail lookup.

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 only says 'Leitura' (reading), which implies this is for read use but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over pr_list or other PR-related tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any conditions that would select this tool.

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