Get pull request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds what data is returned (merge state, labels, SHAs) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It adds some value but not rich context.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb, enumerates output categories, and avoids redundancy or excessive detail. Every word contributes 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?

For a simple, read-only fetch tool with three fully described parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what will be returned. It could be slightly more explicit about single-PR scope, but the sibling list makes this clear.

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%, with clear descriptions for owner, repo, and pull_number. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'pull request' and enumerates distinct contents (metadata, merge state, counts, labels, branch SHAs), clearly differentiating it from siblings like list_prs or get_pr_diff.

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 when to use this tool (fetching a specific PR's data) but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or context about when to prefer sibling tools. The guidance is implied by the tool name and sibling list rather than stated.

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