Github Get Pr Content

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what the 'content/details' include, authentication requirements, or any limitations. Since it adds nothing beyond the annotations, a score of 2 is warranted.

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, short sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, its brevity is also its weakness, as it lacks necessary detail. For conciseness alone, it earns a 4, but the lack of substance limits its value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it fails to clarify what 'content/details' encompasses, making it ambiguous compared to sibling tools that fetch specific aspects like diffs or status checks. Without this context, the agent cannot reliably choose this tool. Thus score 2.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its three parameters (repo_owner, repo_name, pr_number). The description fails to explain any parameter semantics, such as how to identify the pull request or any format expectations. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but does not, so score 1.

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 clear verb 'Fetches' with a specific resource 'content/details of a specific pull request'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_pr_diff or github_get_pr_linked_issues. Thus a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_get_pr_diff or github_get_pr_status_checks. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage. With many sibling tools that fetch PR-related data, this is a significant gap, so score 2.

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