Get pull request

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (status, branches, size, description, changed files), but it never mentions that the file list is capped at 100 or that the description body is truncated, which is the kind of behavior the caller would want to know.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then enumerates the payload fields. No extra words are present, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of inventorying what is returned, which is the most important missing piece. Combined with full schema documentation and read-only annotations, the definition is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly; only the truncation and cap limits are absent.

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 100%, so all five parameters, including the include_files and body_max_chars defaults, are already documented in the schema. The description's reference to "the list of changed files" loosely hints at include_files but adds no new syntax or semantics. The baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair ("Details for one pull request") and enumerates what those details contain: status, branches, size, description, changed files. The phrase "one pull request" implicitly separates it from the list-style siblings such as list_pull_requests, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 use case (fetch details for a single, already-identified PR) can be inferred from the description combined with the required number parameter. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_pull_requests or search_issues_and_prs, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the PR number to be known first.

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