repo_get_pull_request_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response includes (e.g., fields returned, format). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple read operation), high schema coverage (100%), and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema by explaining behavioral traits or return values, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (pullRequestId, repositoryId, includeWorkItemRefs). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a pull request by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like repo_list_pull_requests_by_repo (which lists multiple) by specifying retrieval by ID, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description text.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing repositoryId and pullRequestId), compare to similar tools (e.g., repo_get_pull_request_by_id vs repo_list_pull_requests_by_repo for single vs multiple), or indicate any constraints.

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