get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds some context about return content ('includes status like mergeable') and implies read-only behavior via 'Get'. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or the full scope of returned data.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and a key detail. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool is simple (3 required params, no output schema), and the description gives a reasonable overview but is thin on return value specifics. It mentions 'detailed information' and 'status like mergeable' but does not list typical fields, leaving the agent to assume standard PR object structure.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters owner, repo, and pull_number. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific pull request'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('includes status like mergeable'). This differentiates it from siblings like list_pull_requests (list) and merge_pull_request (mutate).

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?

Usage is implied: this is for retrieving details about a single pull request, as opposed to listing or modifying. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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