github_get_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It only states 'Get details' implying a read operation, but does not disclose idempotency, required permissions, or potential side effects. No mention of rate limits or error handling beyond 'or error'.

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 short and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes necessary information without extraneous detail. It could be slightly more concise but is efficient overall.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks specificity about the structure of the returned dictionary or error cases. More detail would improve completeness.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by explaining both parameters: pr_number is the PR number, repo is optional and defaults to a configured default. This compensates minimally for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific pull request'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like github_list_prs (list vs get specific) and github_create_pr (create vs get).

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 implies usage for fetching details of a specific PR by number, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like github_list_prs. No mention of prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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