get_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get details about a pull request' without detailing what 'details' include, whether the operation is read-only, any potential side effects, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point with the verb front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it is sparse. It earns a 4 for effectively communicating the core purpose without unnecessary verbiage.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide at least some context about the returned data or usage context. The current description is a restatement of the tool name and does not explain what 'details' means, leaving the agent to guess about response structure and edge cases.

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 input schema already provides 100% documentation for all three parameters (owner, repo, pr_number). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so it neither improves nor detracts from parameter clarity. Baseline 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 clearly uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details about a pull request'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_prs (which lists multiple PRs) and create_pr/comment_on_pr/merge_pr (which perform actions), by focusing on retrieval of a single PR's details.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_prs. The description only states what the tool does, not the scenarios in which it should be preferred, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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