github_get_pull_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is set. The description adds value by disclosing the failure condition ('call fails if the GitHub head changed') and specifying the content of the response (immutable head SHA and change totals). It also clarifies the binding requirement between run, repository, and pull request. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches them.

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?

Two sentences achieve everything: the first defines the action and key outputs, the second gives the usage context and a critical failure condition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only metadata GET with three parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool does, when to call it, what it returns (head SHA and change totals), and the failure condition. There is no missing essential detail that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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%, with each parameter (runId, repository, pullNumber) already documented with formats and constraints. The tool description reinforces the relationship ('bound to a RepoPilot review run') and the 'must match' requirement, which adds slight semantic context to runId and repository. However, it does not add syntax or usage nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with an explicit action ('Read current metadata') and a clearly defined resource ('the pull request bound to a RepoPilot review run'), and immediately names the key outputs (head SHA and change totals). This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like github_get_pull_request_checks, which focuses on check runs, and github_list_pull_request_files, which lists files. An agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives a concrete point-in-workflow instruction ('Use before reviewing files or publishing a review') and warns about preconditions (run/repo/PR must match, fails if head changed). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when *not* to use it. The siblings are functionally distinct, so the omission is minor, but explicit exclusions would push this to 5.

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