get_github_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that PRs are read-only mirror rows that can never be created via this API, that empty/404 results are ambiguous, and that visibility is governed by OpenProject's own check rather than this MCP's OPENPROJECT_READ_PROJECTS allowlist.

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 lead sentence front-loads the purpose and the following paragraphs each earn their place by covering a distinct caveat (read-only, ambiguous 404, visibility model). It is slightly long, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the non-obvious operational facts an agent needs: the read-only nature, the unresolvable 404 ambiguity, and the visibility model. Little is missing for a one-parameter lookup.

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 0% for the single integer id parameter, so the schema itself adds nothing. The description contributes only the distinction that this is the pull request's 'own id' rather than a work-package-scoped identifier; it gives no format, range, or source guidance for the value.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (Get), resource (GitHub pull request), and scope constraint (single, by its own id). No sibling in the list operates on pull requests, so no disambiguation is required, and the 'global lookup' framing further pins down what is fetched.

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?

It clearly explains the retrieval context and the interpretation of results, including that empty/404 is ambiguous between a missing PR and a missing GitHub App integration. It does not state when to prefer a different tool, but no plausible alternative exists in this sibling set.

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