github_get_pull_request

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details', which implies a safe read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or the structure of the response. This is minimal and leaves important questions unanswered.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 simple GET operation with fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what 'details' are included, so an agent might not know exactly what fields to expect in the response. This is a clear gap but not fatal given the straightforward nature of the 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters (owner, repo, pull_number) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to; the parameter names and descriptions are self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific pull request'), clearly indicating a singular retrieval operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_pull_requests (listing) and github_create_pull_request (creation).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases like 'use when you have a pull request number' or 'for listing use github_list_pull_requests instead', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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