get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that it returns complete details but does not disclose behavioral traits such as being read-only, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks additional context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise with a front-loaded purpose statement, followed by well-structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes returns as 'JSON object with complete pull request details.' It covers parameter behavior sufficiently for a retrieval tool. Minor missing details (e.g., error handling) but overall complete.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning to all three parameters. It explains default behaviors: pr_id defaults to newest open PR, repository to current context, workspace to default. This provides useful guidance beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific pull request' with specific attributes like description, reviewers, and approval status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as 'list_pull_requests' (listing) and 'get_pull_request_diff' (diff).

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 explains when to use this tool and provides default behaviors for each parameter (e.g., if pr_id not provided, returns newest open PR). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools.

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