Get pull request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the operation itself, such as error handling, authentication, or what happens if the PR is not found. No contradiction with annotations.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core operation.

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 fetch with rich annotations, the description is minimally viable, but it omits parameter semantics and any usage relationship to list_pull_requests. With no output schema, the agent gets little context about the return shape or error behavior.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage and the description gives no explanation of project, repo, or id. It doesn't compensate for the schema gap, though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory. An agent still must infer that id is the pull request number and how repo/project are formatted.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a single pull request', clearly stating the operation and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_pull_requests by emphasizing 'single'.

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 phrase 'a single pull request' implies this is for retrieving one specific PR rather than listing all, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states conditions (e.g., use when you have the PR ID, use list_pull_requests to find it first). No exclusions or sibling references are given.

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