get_pull_request

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

The description discloses that the tool returns the full Gitea PullRequest object with an additional 'comments_list' field, and explicitly states what is NOT included (inline review comments). This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by explaining the exact return structure and scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences plus a crucial clarification, all front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, relationship to another tool, and an explicit exclusion. No wasted words or redundant content.

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's 3 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns, what it does not return, and its conceptual alignment with get_issue. No gaps in context for effective agent 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (owner, repo, pull_number). The description reinforces that pull_number is the issue number, but does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 'Get a single pull request by number, including its discussion comments,' specifying the resource (pull request), action (get), and scope (including comments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pull_requests (list vs single) and explicitly clarifies that inline review comments are not included, differentiating from potential review tools.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool to retrieve a single PR with its comment thread. It excludes inline review comments and directs users to another endpoint for those, and notes the shape mirrors get_issue, aiding consistency. No ambiguity about when to use versus alternatives.

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