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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return payload ('with commits and linked work item references'), which is genuinely useful, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it omits any mention of authentication requirements, error conditions, or the return shape beyond those two inclusions, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the payload details. There is no wasted wording. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 only because, given the absence of annotations and output schema, a few more clauses about usage or behavior could have been added without harming conciseness.

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 and no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent receives and needs. It partially does so by stating the payload, but it does not disclose return format, possible errors, or the relationship to get_pull_request_by_url. For a relatively simple single-PR fetch the definition is adequate, but for a tool with this sibling set it is not fully complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (project, repositoryId, pullRequestId) with their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which keeps this at the baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'commits' and 'work items' maps to expected output, not to input parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one Azure Repos pull request' with a scoping qualifier ('one') that distinguishes it from list-type siblings. Mentioning the payload ('with commits and linked work item references') also separates it from dedicated tools like get_pull_request_commits and get_pull_request_work_items, though it never names these siblings explicitly, which prevents 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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. In particular, it does not distinguish itself from get_pull_request_by_url (a close cousin that fetches a PR via URL), nor does it note that list_pull_requests should be used to discover pullRequestId values first. The usage context is only implied by the verb and resource, so an agent must infer the selection criteria on its own.

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