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. It describes what data is retrieved but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential performance implications. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 efficiently lists the retrieved data without any fluff. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job of listing the expected return fields (metadata, description, state, author, reviewers, branches, timestamps, links). It is fairly comprehensive, though it could be improved by noting if any fields are nested or if there are pagination details.

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%, meaning all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates that the tool retrieves for a specific pull request. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly lists the resource ('metadata, description, state/status, author, reviewers, source branch, destination branch, timestamps, and links for a specific Bitbucket pull request'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (add_pull_request_comment and get_pull_request_diff) by focusing on retrieval of metadata, not adding comments or getting diffs.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose for other tasks. The agent must rely on tool names and context, which is 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.