repo_pull_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that results include human-facing PR URLs — but says nothing about pagination behavior or auth/permission requirements, which is the kind of context that would raise this above baseline.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary read operations front-loaded and the filter/return details trailing. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both operation modes, the filters, and the nature of the return value (PR URLs). It is close to complete, missing only pagination/return-shape detail and explicit sibling routing, which are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 78% with 9 parameters, and the schema already documents top, skip (including nextSkip), project, repository, branches and pullRequestId. The description only echoes the status and branch filters, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 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 states specific verbs and resource: 'Get a pull request by ID or list pull requests in a repository,' plus the optional filters. It clearly separates the two modes, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling repo_pull_request_write, leaving the read-vs-write routing to inference from the tool name.

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?

It implies usage by pairing 'get' with an ID and 'list' with a repository, and notes the available filters, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the write sibling as the alternative for mutations, and no prerequisites such as the ADO_PROJECT default.

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