Get pull request

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'fetches' indicates a read-only operation but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or what fields are included in 'full details'. It adds minimal context beyond the action itself.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is a simple 'get' with complete schema coverage, but there is no output schema. The description says 'full details' without specifying what those details include, leaving some ambiguity about the return structure. It is minimally sufficient but could be clearer about expected response fields.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'fetches' with a specific resource ('full details of a single pull request'), and distinguishes from siblings like bb_get_pull_request_description by emphasizing 'full details' rather than just the description. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 description implies when to use this tool via 'full details' and 'single pull request', making the context clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to bb_get_pull_request_description for description-only needs. It stops short of fully explicit guidance.

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