tea_pr_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'view' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or what 'details' includes. No additional context is given beyond the generic verb, leaving the agent to guess about side effects or return behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately. It contains zero redundant words and is appropriately sized for a simple view tool.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema, so the description is functional but lacks return-value details or constraints beyond the schema. It does not specify what 'details' means or any edge cases, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions for both 'repo' and 'index'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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 'view' with a resource 'pull request' and scope 'specific', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tea_prs_list, tea_pr_create, tea_pr_merge, and other mutations. It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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?

The description implies usage when needing details of a specific pull request, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools exist for listing, creating, merging, etc., but no guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs them.

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