github_get_pull_request_files

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: long diffs are truncated and this is signaled via the `patch_truncated` field, which an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the truncation caveat in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and the key behaviors come first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the truncation note is a valuable addition. However, with three parameters and low schema coverage, the definition leaves required-vs-optional and limit behavior unaddressed.

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 only 33%: `repo` is documented but `limit` and `number` are not. The description says nothing about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required `number` and the default-limited `limit`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list the files a pull request changes, along with their diffs. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like github_get_pull_request (PR metadata) and github_get_file.

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?

Usage is only implied: call this when you need the file-level changes of a specific PR. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over github_get_pull_request or when it is inappropriate, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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