List pull request files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds non-structured behavior: auto-pagination when both page and limit are omitted, and the Forgejo limitation that hunks are not returned here. It doesn't state ordering or total counts, so not a full 5.

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, both dense and front-loaded: the capability and return shape come first, the limitation-redirect second. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of sketching the return shape (per-file additions/deletions, rename info) and covers pagination behavior. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether a total count is available, but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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 per-parameter docs already carry the baseline. The description adds semantics the schema does not: the meaning of owner/repo/index as a composite identifier and the notable interaction where omitting both page and limit triggers auto-pagination.

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') and enumerates the returned data (additions/deletions, rename info). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_pull_request_diff, so an agent can choose without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the when-to-use condition (listing changed files) and names the alternative for the adjacent need (get_pull_request_diff for hunks), including the exact trigger 'pass a filename'. This is explicit routing rather than implied usage.

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