list_pull_files

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

The description discloses pagination behavior (1-based page, limit <= 100) and the fields in each entry. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, but listing is inherently read-only. It could add authentication or error details, but it's sufficient for safe usage.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides output details and use case. No unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description includes output fields, making it fairly complete. It does not mention ordering or default parameters but covers the essential information for effective use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context about index and pagination but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool lists files changed in a pull request, specifying the required index parameter. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on file-level diff scope, not metadata or commits.

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 suggests using the tool to understand a PR's diff scope before reviewing or merging, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but among siblings it is the only tool for file listing, making usage unambiguous.

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