get_pull_request_diff

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

No annotations provided; the description only states it 'gets the diff' without detailing read-only nature, permission requirements, diff format, or any side effects. It lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 short and neatly organized with a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the Arg list could be integrated into the main description.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to cover return values. However, it lacks details on the diff format, filtering behavior, or any edge cases, making it only partially complete for a 5-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'context_lines' has default and max, 'src_path' is optional and purpose is given. However, it does not explain the format or constraints for other parameters like project_key or repo_slug.

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 'Get the diff of a pull request,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pull_request, get_pull_request_activities, etc.

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 like get_commit_diff or get_pull_request_diff_stat. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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