Get Pull Request Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation — nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent PR number or any rate/auth considerations — so it only meets the lowered bar.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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 single-resource read with an output schema (which removes any need to explain return values), the definition covers what is needed. It loses a point only for not clarifying relationship to the PR-diff/checks/comments siblings an agent might confuse it with.

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 100%, so repo, owner (with GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG fallback), and pull_number are fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'by number' loosely maps to pull_number but adds no format or defaulting detail, 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 a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single GitHub pull request) plus the keying dimension (by number), which separates it from list_pull_requests_tool and the diff/checks siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_pull_request_diff_tool, get_pull_request_checks_tool, or list_pull_request_comments_tool for adjacent PR data. The agent must infer routing purely from the tool name.

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