scm_pull_requests_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: no note on authentication, rate limits, whether the resource is cached, or whether a missing id errors. The endpoint string conveys only the HTTP verb, which the tool name already implies.

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 single line duplicates itself verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure waste rather than conciseness. There is no front-loading of purpose or scope because no purpose statement exists.

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?

This is a read-one tool with a rich four-parameter schema (include relationships, sparse fieldsets) and no output schema. The description supplies none of the context an agent needs—no indication of what gets returned when include=repository, no note on sparse-fieldset behavior—leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 the baseline of 3 applies: the schema already documents id, include, and the two fields_* sparse-fieldset parameters with enum options. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 is just the raw endpoint string 'GET /v1/scmPullRequests/{id}' repeated twice in parentheses. It restates the tool name and reveals nothing about what a 'scm pull request' instance fetch actually yields or how it differs from siblings like scm_repositories_pull_requests_get_to_many_relationship. This is effectively a tautology.

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, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would call this rather than the related-collection sibling.

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