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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It discloses that large diffs arrive cut, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. While the read-only nature is implied, the lack of explicit safety declaration is a gap.

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 concise two-sentence statement with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('The files one merge request, pull request or commit touches, with their diffs') and then adds a necessary caveat ('Large diffs arrive cut'). Every sentence 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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and a key limitation. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., list of file paths with diffs), but this is largely implied. An explicit read-only note would improve completeness, but it is fairly complete as-is.

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 covers both parameters with detailed descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add significant parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it mentions the change parameter accepts MR/PR numbers or commit hashes, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves files touched by a merge request, pull request, or commit, along with their diffs. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_code or search_code, which operate on individual files or search content. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'get'.

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 usage when you need to see which files a change affects and their diffs. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or compare to alternative tools such as read_code or search_code. The scope is clear, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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