getPullRequestById

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the dual-source behavior (Nostr id vs forge read), which affects what data is reachable given the inputs, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes when an id does not resolve, or rate limits on the forge read path.

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?

Two compact sentences with the identifier logic front-loaded. 'The way the website opens it' is the one soft phrase that does not clearly earn its place, but there is no padding or repetition.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the identifier-mode logic but omits what the response contains, whether relay/ownerPubkey mismatches error out, and the cost of the forge read. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured behavioral data.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one piece of real value beyond the schema: the '64-character' format constraint on prId, which the schema only describes as 'Nostr pull request id'. However, the conditional dependency on ownerPubkey/repoId largely repeats schema text, and the relays parameter is undocumented in both places.

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 states it fetches a single pull request ('One pull request') and distinguishes itself from the list-style siblings (listPRs, listPRComments) by its singular scope. The phrase 'the way the website opens it' is a vague hint at the returned representation rather than a precise statement of what is fetched, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It does not name an alternative tool or say when to prefer this over listPRs or getIssueById, but it does route the caller between two identifier regimes: a 64-character id resolves as a Nostr PR, while pr-N or a number requires ownerPubkey/repoId and reads the forge. That is conditional usage guidance, though sibling-level when-to-use is absent.

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