get_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or whether 'full details' includes nested objects like comments or reviewers. The output schema may cover return fields, but the description itself is minimal.

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 sentence followed by a tightly structured Args list. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The main intent is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 that this is a simple getter tool and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete for its purpose. It does not explain how to obtain workspace/repo slugs, but such context is likely shared across sibling tools. The output schema presumably details the return structure, so the description need not repeat it.

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 includes an Args section that provides semantic meaning for all three parameters: pr_id as 'Pull request ID number', workspace as 'Workspace slug', and repo as 'Repository slug'. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, adding value beyond the bare property titles.

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 'Get full details of a pull request' clearly states a specific action (get details) on a specific resource (pull request). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests or pr_diff, which serve different purposes.

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 this tool is used when you need comprehensive information about a single pull request, as opposed to listing multiple PRs or viewing diffs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria.

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