get_pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns changed files and mergeability state, which is useful context beyond a simple read. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or response structure details beyond this brief summary, so it provides only incremental 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?

The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, stating the primary action and key inclusions. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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, the description provides a reasonable summary of return content (details, changed files, mergeability). It is sufficiently complete for a simple read operation, though it could mention whether the response is paginated or includes commit history. Overall, it covers the essentials without significant gaps.

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 fully documents all three parameters (repo, owner, number) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameter usage or constraints, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 tool fetches a single pull request's details, specifically including changed files and mergeability state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_prs (which lists multiple PRs) and get_file (which fetches file contents).

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 retrieving a specific pull request, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like list_prs or get_file. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided, making it adequate but not explicit.

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