getPullRequest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, scope of details, or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though it is slightly too terse to maximize value by clarifying what 'details' includes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'details' are returned, but it remains vague. With many sibling tools that return specific subsets (diff, commits, comments, activity), the description does not sufficiently explain the scope of this tool's response or when it is the right choice.

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 coverage is 100%, and all three parameters (owner, repo, pull_number) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the full load, which meets the baseline.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific pull request'), and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from listing pull requests. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getPullRequestActivity, getPullRequestDiff, or getPullRequestCommits, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getPullRequests, getPullRequestActivity, or getPullRequestDiff. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected, and provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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