get_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. It merely states 'Get a pull request' without any such details, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. It lacks necessary details to be considered a well-structured description.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to cover return values, behavior, or context. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it adds no meaning beyond the parameter names (owner, repo, pull_number), which are somewhat self-explanatory but not formally explained.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'a pull request', clearly indicating the tool's action. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_pull_request or merge_pull_request, though it does not specify that it retrieves a single pull request by number.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pull_requests or get_issue, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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