get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action and gives no context about the response format, what the 'repo' identifier means (owner/repo format?), whether owner is optional, or any side effects. With an output schema present and read-only semantics implied by 'get', some of this is mitigated, but the description adds no behavioral color beyond the one-line statement.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause. However, it's borderline under-specified rather than concise—one sentence that says essentially what the tool name already conveys, adding no supplementary 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 an output schema exists and the tool is a simple read operation, moderate completeness might suffice. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the absence of parameter clarifications (especially the owner/repo relationship) leaves gaps. The task is simple enough that a 3 is fair, but it could easily be more helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not. There's no clarification of what 'repo' should contain (e.g., 'owner/repo' format), what 'owner' default '' means or when it's needed, or how pull_number should be obtained. The params are minimally self-describing by name but ambiguous in usage semantics.

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 verb+resource: 'Get' a 'pull request by number'. It's unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like preview_pull_request or list_pull_requests, though the name itself implies fetching a single PR by number versus listing.

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. For instance, there's no distinction between get_pull_request and preview_pull_request, or how this differs from list_pull_requests. An agent has no context on which scenarios warrant each sibling tool.

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