get_pull_request_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get the diff' but doesn't specify what the diff includes (e.g., file changes, patch format), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the diff output looks like (e.g., raw patch text, structured data), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.

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% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'owner', 'repo', and 'pull_number'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints (e.g., pull_number must be an integer). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the diff for a pull request' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('diff for a pull request'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_pull_request' or 'list_pull_requests', which might also retrieve pull request data but not specifically the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid pull request number) or compare it to other tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_issue' for issue details vs. this for pull request diffs).

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