list_pull_request_commits

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the behavioral burden. It only mentions pagination via start and limit parameters but does not disclose specifics like chronological ordering, whether merge commits are included, or any permissions or rate limits. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is structured clearly. However, the parameter descriptions are repetitive and could be condensed. One unnecessary sentence structure but overall 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?

Given the large set of sibling tools and 5 parameters, the description provides insufficient context. It does not differentiate from list_commits or explain how the output relates to other PR tools. The existence of an output schema reduces burden, but behavioral and usage context are lacking.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so description must compensate. It provides one-line explanations (e.g., 'The project key.'), but these add little beyond the schema titles. The defaults for start and limit are mentioned but no details on valid ranges or formats.

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 'List commits included in a pull request (paginated).' This specifies the verb (list), resource (commits in a PR), and pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_commits (all repo commits) and get_commit (single commit).

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. Does not mention when not to use it or provide any comparison to siblings such as list_commits or get_pull_request. Without this, an agent may misuse the tool.

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