get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. The 'Get' verb and field list imply a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, response shape, or permission requirements. It provides adequate but not rich behavioral 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists what is included. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics by listing the fields returned. It does not explain the overall response structure, but given the simplicity and the enumerations, it is complete enough for an agent to select and understand the tool.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions, so the tool description does not need to add parameter details. It does not go beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pull request'), explicitly enumerates the returned fields (title, description, author, state, branches, reviewers, participants), and differentiates from sibling tools that focus on narrow aspects (changes, diff, activities, commits) by indicating this is the comprehensive details endpoint.

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?

While no explicit alternative tools are named, the enumeration of included fields establishes clear usage context: use this for a full overview of a PR, not for specific diffs or activity logs. It lacks explicit when-not guidance but the context is clear enough.

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