gh_get_pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as rate limits, auth needs, or error behavior. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides further transparency.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short and to the point.

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 straightforward get-by-identifier tool with an output schema and safe-read annotations, the description is sufficient. It could mention that 'number' refers to the pull request number, but overall the required arguments are clear from the schema. The main gap is usage guidance, which is covered elsewhere.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters, but it only mentions 'specific pull request' without defining the role of owner, repo, or number. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional semantics are provided.

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 the target ('details of a specific pull request'), distinguishing it from list operations like gh_list_prs and from issue-specific tools like gh_get_issue. It unambiguously indicates a single PR by number.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives such as gh_list_prs or gh_get_issue. There are no exclusions or cross-references, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name and parameter names.

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