Get pull request description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only fetch and specifies the return format as raw Markdown, which is helpful. However, it omits details like error behavior, authentication needs, or whether a missing description returns null, leaving some ambiguity.

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 that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('raw Markdown') and narrow scope. It lacks only minor edge-case details such as behavior when the pull request is not found or inaccessible, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for all three parameters, including environment-variable fallbacks for workspace and repoSlug. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetches' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a pull request's description text'. The qualifiers 'just' and 'raw Markdown' precisely scope the operation and distinguish it from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_request or bb_get_pull_request_diff.

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 'just a pull request's description text' implies this is the lightweight alternative to fetching a full pull request, giving the agent clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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