get_pull_request

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only operation and 'full details' suggests a comprehensive response, but the description does not disclose not-found behavior, response shape, or other caveats. Core behavior is clear, but depth is limited.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Full details' and 'specific' add meaning beyond the tool name, and it is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval operation.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient: it states the operation and target resource. However, with no output schema and no annotations, response contents and selection guidance are left somewhat implicit.

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%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions: repo_slug is 'Repository slug' and pr_id is 'Pull request ID'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pull request'), and the phrase 'full details of a specific pull request' clearly differentiates this from list_pull_requests and other PR-level operations. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 the tool is for retrieving one pull request's details rather than listing PRs or getting a diff, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the word 'specific' and the tool name.

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