ado_pull_request_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description contributes only the vague notion of a 'selected repository' context and says nothing about what is returned, what happens when the PR ID does not exist, or auth requirements.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is close to under-specification, which caps it below a 5.

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 tool whose only required target is a nested, five-field object with zero documented fields and no output schema, the description leaves the agent unable to construct the target reliably or know the return shape. Annotations cover the mutation/read profile but not the calling contract.

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 must compensate, and it does not. The nested 'target' object contains five fields (profile, project, repoPath, repository, organization) that are entirely undocumented anywhere, and 'pullRequestId' is only obliquely implied by 'a pull request'.

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 and resource ('Read a pull request'), and the verb alone distinguishes it from ado_pull_request_create and ado_pull_request_update. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or describing the returned data, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives no guidance on when to select this tool over ado_pull_requests_list or ado_pull_request_update, and no prerequisites are spelled out. The phrase 'in the selected repository' only faintly implies a prior ado_context/ado_config selection step without stating it.

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