get_pull_request_diff_stat

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It mentions pagination parameters (start, limit) but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss authentication, rate limits, or behavior for large PRs.

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 concise: one sentence stating purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. No wasted words, and the purpose is immediately clear.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown here) which likely covers return values, so the description need not explain them. Input parameters are adequately described. Missing usage context and behavioral details prevent a perfect score.

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 0%, but the description provides a one-line explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'project_key: The project key.') which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, it could be more detailed (e.g., format, constraints) for full compensation.

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 it retrieves the per-file change list for a pull request, specifying that it includes added, modified, deleted, and moved files. This verb+resource scope is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pull_request_diff (which likely provides the full diff).

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request_diff or get_pull_request_activities. The purpose is implied but lacks context or exclusions.

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