get_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get detailed information' expresses read-only intent, but the description does not disclose whether only metadata is returned, whether authentication is needed, or what errors may occur for a non-existent PR.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a straightforward fetch operation, although it could add differentiation from sibling tools at no great length cost.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and closely related siblings, the definition leaves important decision cues undefined. An agent would benefit from an explicit callout that this returns PR metadata (not diff) and that list_pull_requests should be used to find the pull number first.

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%, and the description adds little beyond what the schema already reveals. The param names owner, repo, and pull_number are self-explanatory, but the description does not explain the relationship between them or that pull_number is the unique identifier within the given repo.

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 a verb ('Get') and a resource ('a specific pull request'), so an agent can infer this tool fetches one pull request's details. It is distinguishable from list_pull_requests, but it does not explicitly disambiguate from get_pull_request_diff.

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 'a specific pull request' implies the intent: call this when you already have owner, repo, and pull_number. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that list_pull_requests is the way to discover pull request numbers, and no exclusion of get_pull_request_diff.

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