get_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds that the tool returns comments and threads, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it) or describe any other aspects like response format or potential limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by the key detail about including comments and threads. There is no redundancy or filler, every word earns its place.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, but it is a simple read operation with fully documented parameters. The description clarifies that it returns comments and threads, but 'detailed information' remains vague about the full set of fields (e.g., status, reviewers, branches). This is adequate for a basic get operation but leaves room for more precision about the response.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 'Get' with the resource 'pull request', and adds 'including comments and threads' to specify the depth of detail. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests, which would list PRs rather than fetch one detailed object.

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 usage for retrieving detailed information about a single pull request, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pull_requests or get_prs_for_work_item. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, so the guidance is only implicit.

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