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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get full details' and provides parameter names; it does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or possible errors. This is a minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a clean argument list. No filler or redundancy; every line provides needed information, making it easy to parse.

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 simple read operation with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It could be enhanced by mentioning alternatives or edge conditions, but the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, making it sufficient.

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%, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief semantic: 'Repository owner,' 'Repository name,' 'Pull request number.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types, though the explanations are terse.

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 opens with 'Get full details of a specific pull request,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests that operate on collections. The argument list reinforces the intent by naming owner, repo, and pr_number.

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 implies usage: when you need details for one specific pull request, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., list_pull_requests for multiple PRs). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer but lacks explicit guidance.

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