list_pull_request_commits

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions pagination (page, page_size) and the 'raw' flag to include provider payloads, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or safe, error handling, or rate limits. For a read-only listing tool, the impact is lower, but still the description could add safety or side-effect note.

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 concise and well-organized with sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. The main intent is front-loaded in the first line. The additional details are relevant and not redundant. It could be slightly tighter by trimming redundant mentions, but overall it is efficient and structured.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail, and it does provide a brief example. The complexity is moderate (list with pagination), and the description covers pagination and raw payload inclusion, which are the non-obvious parts. However, it lacks usage guidance and some parameter semantics, but given the output schema and clarity of purpose, it is largely complete. Minor gaps prevent a higher 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%, meaning the schema does not explain any parameters. The description does provide some meaning for a few: it explains that 'provider', 'repo', and 'pull_request_id' identify the PR, and it gives ranges for page_size (1 through 100) and examples for raw. However, it does not describe the expected format or semantics for 'page', 'page_size', or 'raw' in detail. Since coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but only partially does.

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 identifies the action ('List commits') and the resource ('associated with a pull request'). It also provides the key identifying parameters (provider, repo, pull_request_id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests and get_pull_request_diff. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 basic instructions on what each parameter does and includes an example, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context (e.g., 'Use this to get the commit history of a PR, whereas get_pull_request_diff shows changes'). The example implicitly suggests usage, but there is no direct guidance for selection or exclusion.

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