get_pull_request

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Get' which indicates a read operation, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or the structure of the response. The docs link is present but not elaborated in the description.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately establishes the action and resource, followed by a documentation link. It is concise with no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the basic operation, but since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify the return structure or any edge cases. The docs link helps but is not a substitute for a brief behavioral summary.

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?

All three parameters (owner, repo, pull_number) have descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a single pull request' within a GitHub repository. This distinguishes it from sibling list operations like list_pull_requests.

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 this is for retrieving one specific pull request, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus listing pull requests or accessing pull request files. The docs link provides additional context, but no explicit guidance is given in the description itself.

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