get_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get details') and mentions the inclusion of merge commit information, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or the exact shape of the response beyond merge commit info.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and a key detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what to expect (details including merge commit info). However, it could be more specific about what 'details' encompasses or that it returns the full pull request object, which would provide more complete context.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, covering 100% of the schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but this is acceptable because the schema already fully documents workspace, repository, and pull_request_id.

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 with a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('details of a Bitbucket pull request'), and an explicit detail ('including merge commit information'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_pull_requests (which lists) and update_pull_request (which modifies).

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 when to use this tool (when you need details of a single pull request) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Given sibling tool names, usage context is somewhat implied but not fully articulated.

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