get_pull_request

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get', but it does not state that it is non-destructive, describe response format, or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with no fluff or repetition. It effectively communicates the purpose without waste, though it is minimal. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it lacks any additional contextual structure, but it is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description must compensate, but 'Get details of a specific pull request' is too vague. It does not clarify what 'details' includes (e.g., status, author, comments, mergeable state) or handle edge cases like error conditions. For an agent to invoke this correctly, more information about the returned data is needed.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters ('repository' and 'pull_request_id'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already contains, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 details') and the resource ('a specific pull request'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_pull_requests' (which lists multiple) and 'get_pull_request_comments' (which gets comments). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide scope details beyond 'specific', so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool (e.g., 'list_pull_requests') would be more appropriate. This is a bare getter with no usage context.

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