Get Pull Request

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

Annotations fully cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds 'including description and reviewers' which hints at contents but does not disclose additional behavioral traits or constraints beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 the presence of output schema and thorough annotations, the description is adequate. It mentions key output contents. However, it could briefly note that response_format controls output type, though that is covered in parameters. Still, complete enough for a simple read tool.

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 100%, with each parameter well-described. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (full details of a specific pull request), and key contents (description and reviewers). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pull_requests (list) and get_pull_request_changes (code changes).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While it's implied that this tool is for retrieving full details of a single PR, the description does not help the agent choose between this and related tools like get_pull_request_diff or get_pull_request_comments.

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