getPullRequestCommits

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Get commits' without explaining pagination (despite pagelen, page, all parameters in schema), rate limits, data freshness, or whether the call is idempotent. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 extremely short (6 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it omits optional but valuable context like pagination defaults or relationship to sibling tools. Conciseness is good, but the description could better earn its place by summarizing key schema constraints or usage notes.

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 has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention pagination behavior (defaults, max items), the meaning of the 'all' parameter, or any edge cases (e.g., empty PR, non-existent PR). The agent is left to parse the schema fully, which is risky for correct invocation.

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%, and all 6 parameters are described inline. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., defaults, constraints). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but not enhanced.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('commits on a pull request'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getPullRequest (which gets the PR itself) and getPullRequestActivity (which gets activity log). The verb is specific to commits, and the resource is unambiguously tied to a pull request.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listCommits (which lists all commits in a repository) or getPullRequest (which fetches PR metadata). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., PR must exist) or context about pagination behavior, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.

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