get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' implies a read-only, safe operation, but nothing is stated about authentication scope, whether an unknown pr_id errors or returns empty, or what 'details' comprises. For a no-annotation tool this is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, correctly sized for a simple lookup tool. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it loses a point for not earning space with any added value.

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?

All required parameters are covered by the schema, but with no annotations and no output schema the description says nothing about the shape of the returned PR details. Adequate as a minimum-viable lookup definition, not more.

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 100%, so all three parameters (workspace, repo_slug, pr_id) are already documented in the schema with their meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing hints beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (details of a specific pull request), so the agent knows it retrieves a single PR by identity rather than a collection. It never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pull_request_diff or get_pull_request_comments, which also read PR data.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_pull_requests (browse many) or the diff/comments/activity siblings. Usage is only inferable from the word 'specific' in the description and the required pr_id parameter.

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