github_get_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any potential behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a simple GET, this is adequate but not rich; no contradictions exist with annotations since none are provided.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. Perfectly concise for a simple getter.

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 simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description is sufficient to convey the core function. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It lacks a bit of contextual guidance about when to choose this over github_list_prs, but for a simple fetch operation, it is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (owner, repo, number) already described. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond 'by number' which restates the 'number' parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents all parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('specific pull request') and scope ('by number'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_list_prs' which lists all PRs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by number' implies usage when a specific PR number is known, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_list_prs or github_get_issue. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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