ado_pull_request_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get,' which implies read-only, but provides no context about behavior for missing IDs, response payload, or side effects; it largely repeats the function implied by the tool name.

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?

One sentence, grammatically simple, and front-loaded with the operation. There is no wasted wording, though it is slightly under-specified for a complete tool definition.

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 an output schema and low complexity, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows the input keys and can infer a single-PR return. It remains incomplete in usage guidance and behavioral detail relative to having no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names repository and pull_request_id but only restates their roles as lookup keys; the optional project parameter is not mentioned or clarified at all.

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 is precise: 'Get a pull request by repository and ID' names the verb, resource, and the two identifying parameters. It clearly distinguishes from sibling list/query tools, which operate over collections rather than a single pull request.

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 phrase 'by repository and ID' implies this is the tool to call when a specific pull request is already identified. However, the description never explicitly contrasts it with ado_pull_requests_list or other siblings, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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