get-pull-request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' specifically includes (e.g., metadata, diff, comments). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a complex API.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward read operation and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes (e.g., whether it returns metadata, diff, or linked resources), which is critical given the many sibling tools that fetch specific PR components. The agent would be left guessing about the response structure and scope.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three required parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate, but also doesn't add value like explaining parameter relationships or constraints.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific pull request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'get-pull-request-comments' or 'get-pull-request-files', which also retrieve pull request information but focus on specific aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list-pull-requests' (for multiple PRs) and 'get-pull-request-status' (for status only), there's no indication that this tool returns comprehensive details for a single PR, leaving the agent to guess based on naming alone.

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