Get GitHub PR Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that prStatus is live and that repo/owner auto-detect from the current git repository, which affects how the tool behaves when left on defaults.

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose, the second front-loads the highest-risk instruction (do not guess owner/repo). No filler and the warning is placed where it will be read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the highest-risk behavioral gotcha (auto-detection) is covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented pr_number/use_test_db parameters, which leaves a small hole for a 5-parameter tool.

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 60%; the description reinforces the critical repo/owner auto-detect semantics (matching the schema) and truncate_body's token-reduction purpose is already documented. However, pr_number and use_test_db remain undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate for the gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (a specific GitHub pull request) plus scope ('specific' PR) and mentions live prStatus. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool get_github_prs, which returns multiple PRs.

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 IMPORTANT note tells the agent how to supply owner/repo (leave empty to auto-detect), which is useful operational guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_github_prs or get_github_context. Usage is implied rather than delimited.

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