Mooring

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it omits critical details: it does not state this is read-only (implied only by 'Get'), does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., PR not found).

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 docstring-style structure (summary sentence followed by Args block) is efficiently organized and front-loaded. No redundant text, though the parameter documentation is slightly repetitive of the parameter names.

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 simple, flat input schema (2 primitives) and existence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, the lack of behavioral transparency and sibling differentiation leaves gaps that could cause invocation errors.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section compensates effectively: it documents 'repo' with essential format constraints ('owner/name format') and clarifies 'number' refers to 'PR number'. However, it does not describe validation rules or constrints.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific pull request'). The use of 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling gh_pr_list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this versus gh_pr_list (which likely searches/filter) or gh_pr_create. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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