github_get_pull_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that mergeability and review metadata are included, hinting at extra server-side computation, but says nothing about errors for missing PRs or permission requirements. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is an adequate-but-thin addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The enumeration of returned fields is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it still conveys scope efficiently.

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?

An output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to fill parameter and usage gaps — which it largely does not. For a simple two-parameter read tool it is minimally sufficient, but the undocumented required number parameter and lack of sibling routing leave gaps.

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 only 50%: repo documents its 'owner/name' format and GITHUB_MCP_DEFAULT_REPO fallback, but the required number parameter has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one pull request") and enumerates the detail fields returned, which implicitly separates it from the sibling github_list_pull_requests. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus github_list_pull_requests or github_get_pull_request_files, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a PR number, whether closed PRs are visible). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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