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, and it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'typed' metadata entails. The presence of an output schema relieves it of describing the return shape, but the mutation/auth/permission context is entirely absent.

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?

It is a single short front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. The brevity is achieved by omitting information the agent needs rather than by efficient phrasing.

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 output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a crowded set of same-PR siblings, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to route or invoke confidently. It covers only the bare minimum of what the tool is.

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 0% across all three required parameters (owner, repo, number), and the description adds no semantics for any of them. It does not clarify that 'number' is the PR number or the expected owner/repo formats, leaving the agent to infer everything from parameter names.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (pull-request metadata), which is enough to distinguish it from list_pull_requests and search_repository_code. However, 'typed' is unexplained jargon and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_pull_request_diff or get_pull_request_files, which also fetch data for a single PR.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the five siblings, several of which operate on the same PR (diff, files, review report). No prerequisites, no mention of when the metadata view is preferable over the file or diff views.

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