list_pull_commits

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses pagination (1-based, limit ≤100) and return fields, but does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or default behavior for missing index. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then pagination, output structure, and usage context. No fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description covers return fields (sha, html_url, message, author) and pagination. With 5 parameters, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the 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 100%, providing baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining pagination constraints, output fields, and default repo/owner values, exceeding schema alone.

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?

Clearly states it lists commits in one pull request by its 'index' (specific verb+resource). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_pull_files' (files) and 'get_pull_request' (PR details).

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?

Mentions it's 'useful for reviewing what a PR changes before merging,' giving context but not explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.

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