bb_get_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but says nothing beyond the basic operation. It does not mention authentication needs, potential errors, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' entails. The return format and any data transformations are left to the schema, which is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. While it is minimal, it effectively states the core purpose. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it is not verbose.

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 tool has five parameters, three required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, how 'filter' or 'output_format' alter behavior, or what data the user can expect. A tool of this complexity needs more context to support correct usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema already documents all five parameters with descriptions, enums, and defaults, so the parameter semantics are adequately covered.

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 tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific pull request.' The verb 'get' and the singular resource 'specific pull request' distinguish it from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_requests (list) and bb_get_pull_request_comments (comments on a PR).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pull_request_id), exclusions, or preferred contexts. The word 'specific' implies use for a single PR, but this is not elaborated.

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