getPullRequestById

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'from relays,' implying network fetch and no mutation, but omits details like behavior on missing id, error handling, or read-only confirmation. The description is too terse for adequate transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is immediately scannable. Exceptionally concise without losing necessary meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, but no output schema or annotations exist. The description covers the core action but lacks return value explanation, error behavior, and relay usage semantics. It's adequate for a straightforward fetch, but leaves gaps for a less inferential agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by linking 'by id' to prId and 'from relays' to relays. However, it does not specify parameter formats, constraints, or optionality nuances beyond the schema's bare names. The mental model is basic but functional.

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 specifies the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'single PR event (1618)' by id, distinguishing it from sibling tools like listPRs (list) and createPR (create). The mention of '(1618)' contextualizes the Nostr event kind, adding domain-specific clarity.

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 implied: fetch a single PR by id. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., listPRs) or state when not to use. The description offers minimal guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools.

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