Get Pull Request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it documents comment statistics, explains that source_commit/destination_commit are full 40-character hashes unlike the 12-character hashes elsewhere, and notes the null conditions (deleted source branch, fork outside allowed workspaces).

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure makes the description easy to scan. The Returns section is somewhat long for a tool that already has an output schema, but the detail about 40-character hashes and null cases earns its place.

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 read-only single-resource lookup with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. The added notes on commit hash length and null conditions go beyond the output schema in a helpful way, though the parameter glosses remain minimal.

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 carries the burden for all three parameters. It lists each argument, but repo_slug and pull_request_id are restated almost verbatim from their names, adding little; the workspace gloss is genuinely useful because it explains the default-to-configured-workspace behavior that the schema's null default does not convey. Partial compensation justifies a 3 rather than higher.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific pull request'), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish a single-PR lookup from the list sibling get_pull_requests. It does not explicitly name or contrast with close siblings such as get_pull_request_diff, get_pull_request_activity, or get_pull_request_review_summary, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Get details for a specific pull request', and the Returns section hints that this tool is the one to use when comment statistics, commit hashes, or participant review status are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative tools for overlapping needs.

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