get_pr_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains what is returned (metadata, compact per-file summary, diff hunk ranges) and how the output maps to show_step's line parameters. It does not discuss auth or error edge cases, but for a read-only fetch tool it gives substantial behavioral context without contradicting anything.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides integration instructions and a pointer to get_file_diff. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to consume those results with show_step and get_file_diff. It could add URL format details and error behavior, but it is largely complete for its role in the tour workflow.

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 only parameter, pr_url, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining accepted URL formats or examples. The parameter name is suggestive, but no actual semantic guidance is added beyond the structural schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetching a GitHub pull request's metadata and a compact summary of every changed file. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like get_file_diff and show_step by positioning itself as the initial information-gathering step.

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?

Explicit sequencing is provided: 'Call this FIRST, before start_tour' and 'Use get_file_diff to read the actual changed lines of a specific file.' This tells an agent exactly when to invoke this tool and which alternative to choose for a different need.

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