List Pull Request Changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals one useful behavioral trait — that unspecified iterationId auto-selects latest and the output will note this. However, it doesn't disclose what the return format looks like, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether this is read-only operations-wise.

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 compact — two sentences covering purpose and key default behavior. It's front-loaded with the core action. Minor redundancy exists in restating defaults already present in schema descriptions, but overall it's efficient.

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 read-oriented list tool with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a notable default behavior. However, it doesn't describe the output structure (what fields appear in the changes list), which given no output schema would be useful. It's adequate but not rich.

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%, so the schema documents all 4 parameters. The description adds the default-iteration behavior context that enriches understanding of iterationId. However, it repeats parameter-level defaults (project MS, repository MS-Web) already in the schema and adds no additional semantic depth beyond the iteration behavior.

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 '以 REST API 取得 PR 的異動檔案清單（iteration changes）' — a specific verb (取得/list changes) applied to a resource (PR files/iteration changes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like az_pr_show and az_pr_workitems by specifying it returns file change lists for iterations, but doesn't explicitly name the alternative sibling for differentiation.

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 explains the default behavior when iterationId is omitted (uses latest iteration and notes it in output), which gives clear context for when to call without a parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like az_pr_show, az_rest, or az_git_fetch, so it lacks exclusions or alternative naming.

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