bb_get_pull_request

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

With no annotations, 'Get' communicates a read-only operation and the listed response fields give some output behavior. However, the description does not disclose error conditions, required permissions, or other API-specific behaviors, leaving some burden unmet.

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 that names the action and lists the key returned fields without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple GET tool.

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 simple read-only GET with three required parameters, the description gives a reasonable sense of the result contents. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter descriptions, it lacks guidance on parameter meaning and edge-case behavior.

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 only 33%: only 'id' has an example description while projectKey and repoSlug are undocumented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a single PR'), and enumerates the returned fields: state, branches, author, reviewers, participants, version, and web link. This clearly distinguishes it from list_pull_requests and PR mutation tools.

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 'single PR' implies the tool is for retrieving one specific pull request rather than listing or modifying PRs, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The intended use is inferable but not directly stated.

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