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. It details the output structure and mergeable_state values, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe potential errors, auth needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a short list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately provides the return fields. No extraneous content.

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 description covers the purpose and output structure well, which is important given the output schema is not formalized. However, it completely misses parameter semantics and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for an effective tool invocation. For a simple get tool this is borderline adequate.

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%, meaning the input schema has no property descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameters (pr_number, owner, repo), their types, defaults, or usage. This is a critical gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 'Get PR details including mergeable status and statistics,' specifying the action (get) and resource (PR details). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_issue (different resource) and merge_pr (different action), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_pr or list_issues. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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