github_pulls_list_commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention how commits are ordered, whether merge commits are included, or any other behavioral trait beyond the basic listing. Pagination is implied by schema but not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Could slightly improve by adding brief context about the result but remains 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?

The description, combined with the input schema, provides adequate context for a simple list tool. However, without output schema, it does not describe the response format. The scope ('on a pull request') is clear, but additional context about typical use cases or limitations is missing.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters ('owner', 'repo', 'pull_number', 'per_page', 'page'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 action (list) and the resource (commits on a pull request), distinguishing it from 'github_repos_list_commits' which lists commits for a repo. However, it does not specify the returned data structure (e.g., commit SHA, message, author).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'github_pulls_list_files' or 'github_repos_list_commits'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., PR existence) or pagination behavior despite schema including 'per_page' and 'page'.

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