get_pull_request

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. It only states that the tool gets detailed information but does not disclose what fields are included, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. The minimal description adds little beyond the basic read operation implied by 'obtiene'.

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, clear sentence with no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple with only three well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., commits, reviews, comments), which could leave an agent uncertain about the return structure. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in coverage.

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 provides full descriptions for all three parameters (owner, repo, pull_number), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('obtiene' - gets) and resource ('pull request específico'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests. It is unambiguous and directly conveys what the tool does.

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 usage for a specific pull request (as opposed to listing all), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_pull_requests or merge_pull_request. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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