get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately describes a read operation (Retrieve) with no side effects, but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations (none exist).

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and two brief parameter descriptions. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the key data returned (reviewers, labels, work items). It could mention error handling or that it works with Azure DevOps (inferred from sibling names), but it is largely complete for a retrieval tool.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: 'pr_url_or_id: A full PR URL or numeric PR ID' clarifies the accepted formats, and 'working_directory: Optional path for context resolution' hints at its purpose. This adds value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Retrieve full PR metadata including reviewers, labels, and work items', which specifies the verb (Retrieve) and the resource (full PR metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pr_author or get_pr_review_status that target specific subsets.

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 getting comprehensive PR details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_pr_author, get_pr_file_changes) or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on context or prerequisites.

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