get_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the specific return content (diff stats, mergeable state, review status) and implies read-only behavior via 'Get', but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. Some behavioral context is provided, but it is not comprehensive.

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 of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant information; every word adds 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?

There is no output schema, so the description lists the key return fields (diff stats, mergeable state, review status), providing useful output expectations. For a simple 3-param getter, this is reasonably complete, though it omits edge-case behavior like error handling or authentication details.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters (owner and repo), while pull_number lacks a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving pull_number to be inferred from 'one PR'. It does not compensate for the missing coverage, but the missing parameter is straightforward.

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 specific verb 'Get detail' and resource 'one PR', and enumerates exactly what is returned: diff stats, mergeable state, and review status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests and get_issue.

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 use for retrieving a single PR's details, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_pull_requests or other siblings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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