bb_get_pull_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get' adds no new behavioral information. It does not mention large diff payloads, default response scope, or any operational caveats, though the schema's include_diff description separately warns about size.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter 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?

For a read-only PR fetch with a complete parameter schema, an output schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the short description is almost sufficient. The main missing element is routing guidance among the pull-request-specific sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters and their defaults. The description adds no parameter information, so it stays at the baseline 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?

The description uses a clear verb and resource ('Get details of a pull request') and is readily distinguishable from list/create siblings. It doesn't specify which details are covered, so it's not a 5, but it is specific enough for selection.

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 is given for when to call this instead of bb_list_pull_requests, bb_get_pr_diffstat, or bb_get_pr_file_content. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Get'.

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