Get PR

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is well-covered. The description adds a list of metadata fields returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects like error handling, auth requirements, or rate limits. The added context is moderate, 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, efficient sentence that immediately states the action and the resource. No fluff or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 metadata fetch, the description is fairly complete. It explicitly lists the return fields, which serves as a mini output specification since no output schema exists. However, it omits edge-case behaviors like what happens if the PR doesn't exist, and it doesn't clarify parameter optionality (schema shows all optional). Still, it covers the core expectations well.

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 describes all three parameters (repo, pr_id, workspace) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It also doesn't, relying on the schema to provide the necessary semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 ('Fetch') and identifies the exact resource ('Bitbucket pull request's metadata'), listing the key fields returned (title, state, author, branches, description, URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_prs or get_pr_diff, which serve different purposes.

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 single pull request's metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that list_prs should be used for multiple PRs or that get_pr_diff is for changes. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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