Get pull request by URL

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Parse' which implies URL parsing and retrieval, but does not disclose whether authentication is required, what happens on invalid URLs, rate limits, or error handling. It also doesn't mention if the operation has side effects (it is a read operation, but not stated as read-only). The description provides minimal behavioral context, leaving the agent uncertain about edge cases.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is very brief. It is front-loaded with the key action 'Parse' and the resource, but lacks detail that would be helpful. It is concise but under-specifies, so it's not a 5 but it's efficiently short.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description could do more to explain what is returned (e.g., the PR object properties), how the URL is parsed (expected format), and any failure scenarios. The sibling tools suggest a rich PR context, so the description is incomplete for an agent to fully predict the outcome. It is minimally complete for simple use but lacks depth.

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 documents the 'url' parameter with a description 'Azure DevOps pull request web URL' and format 'uri'. The description adds the context that the URL is parsed half-way, but the schema already covers the meaning of the parameter well. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds 'parse' behavior which is a slight bonus, bringing it to a 4.

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 verb 'Parse' and resource 'pull request URL', with the purpose of retrieving a pull request. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' which likely takes an ID rather than a URL, though it does not explicitly differentiate. The description is specific about the input type (URL) and the operation (retrieve), making the purpose clear enough.

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 that this tool is used when you have a pull request URL to retrieve the pull request, but it does not explicitly state when to use this compared to 'get_pull_request' or other related tools. There is no direct mention of alternatives or exclusions, so an agent would need to infer the use case based on the URL versus ID distinction, which is not stated.

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