get_pr_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get detailed information' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose what fields are returned, whether auth is required, whether the response includes reviews/comments, or any pagination or rate-limit behavior. This is thin for an operation with no annotation safety profile.

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 concise sentence with the verb front-loaded and no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized, though it sacrifices specificity for brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what 'detailed information' actually includes, especially given the rich set of sibling tools. It is incomplete for disambiguating the result scope and does not help an agent decide when this tool is the correct one to call.

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 covers all three parameters with straightforward descriptions: repo, owner, and prNumber. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides the necessary parameter semantics.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'pull request', but 'detailed information' is vague and could apply to any of the PR-related sibling tools. It does not specify what is included, such as title, body, state, or metadata, so it does not clearly distinguish itself from get_pr_reviews, get_pr_files, or get_pr_diff_hunks.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or the relationship between get_pr_details and get_pr_reviews/get_pr_comments/get_pr_files, leaving the agent to infer the intended scope.

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