Get Pull Request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the return structure, including comment_stats object with total, resolved, unresolved. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 structured as a docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is reasonably concise, though the Args list with indentation is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value; no filler. Well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and presence of an output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description covers the operation, parameters, and key output detail (comment_stats). It does not mention prerequisites or edge cases, but for a simple retrieval, it is sufficient.

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%, but the description adds brief explanations for each parameter: 'Repository slug', 'Pull request ID', and 'Workspace name (optional, defaults to configured workspace)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, especially the default for workspace. Could be more detailed but is adequate.

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 clearly states 'Get details for a specific pull request,' identifying the verb (Get) and resource (pull request). It distinguishes from siblings like get_pull_request_activity or get_pull_request_comment by implying 'details' includes basic info and comment stats, which is specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It is implied that for getting a specific PR's details, use this tool, but there are many sibling tools for specific aspects (e.g., get_pull_request_commits, get_pull_request_diff) without differentiation. The description does not provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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