get_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the file cap (first 100) and the files_truncated flag, as well as summarizing what checks represent (GitHub Actions on head commit). This goes beyond a simple 'get' and helps set expectations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two concise behavioral clarifications. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description adequately covers key edge-case behavior (file truncation) and the nature of the checks. It is complete for a GET-style tool with modest complexity.

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%, with both repo and number having clear descriptions ('Repository as "owner/repo"' and 'Pull request number'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Get' and identifies the specific resource ('a pull request') and its scoping ('with its changed files and CI check summary'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_pull_requests or get_issue.

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 when a specific pull request's details are needed, especially with files and checks. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_pull_requests or search_issues, nor any exclusions.

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