get_design_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that Kiln Pro is required and that the PR includes diff, comments, and merge history, but it does not mention permission scope, error behavior, or response shape beyond content categories.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, but the Kiln Pro explanation and upgrade URL add promotional weight that dilutes a simple fetch tool.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives adequate context: what a PR contains and that Kiln Pro is required. It does not fully document the id format or failure cases, but the essential invocation information is present.

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 0% for the single pr_id parameter. The description only says 'by id' and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: fetch one pull request's full detail by id. It clearly distinguishes this single-item fetch from the sibling list_design_pull_requests, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Fetch one pull request's full detail by id,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_design_pull_requests or review_design_pull_request. The Kiln Pro requirement is stated, which helps gate eligibility.

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