github_get_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get pull request details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format includes (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 'Get pull request details' is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or behavioral aspects like permissions. For a tool with no structured output or safety hints, more context is needed to be adequately 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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'owner', 'repo', and 'pr_number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get pull request details' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('pull request details'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'github_get_pr_diff' (which likely gets PR differences) or 'github_list_prs' (which lists PRs), making it vague in comparison. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity about what 'details' encompass.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'github_get_pr_diff' for diff details or 'github_list_prs' for listing PRs, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit or implied direction.

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