get_pull_request_changes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content well (files, diffs, branches, policy status), but it is silent on truncation of large diffs, pagination, required permissions, and whether policy evaluation results may be stale or pending.

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 that enumerates the returned artifacts with zero redundant or filler wording. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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?

For a read-only, four-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, describing the return payload is the critical missing piece and the description covers it. It falls short only on operational caveats (diff size limits, permissions), which are secondary for a simple getter.

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 100%, so all four parameters (projectId, repositoryId, pullRequestId, organizationId) are already documented in the schema, including defaults for projectId and organizationId. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter interactions or scoping.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('files changed in a pull request') and enumerates the payload: unified diffs, source/target branch names, and policy evaluation status. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as get_pull_request (metadata) or get_pull_request_comments, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this is for inspecting the diff of a specific PR, and the presence of get_pull_request and get_pull_request_comments suggests the intended split of responsibilities. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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