Get PR Changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it shows which files were changed, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, error handling, or output format details.

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, to the point, with the core purpose in the first sentence and additional detail in the second. No fluff or redundant 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 the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits guidance on pagination, filtering (change_scope), and output format. It is adequate but could be more complete to help an agent navigate optional features.

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 the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; for instance, it doesn't describe how 'change_scope' or 'with_comments' affect results.

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 gets the list of files changed in a pull request, specifying the types of changes (added, modified, deleted, renamed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitbucket_get_pull_request_diff (which shows diff content) and bitbucket_get_commit_diff.

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 implies the tool is for file-level change information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_pull_request_diff or get_commit_diff. No guidance on exclusions or context is provided.

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