get_pull_request_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully handles disclosure. It states 'Returns the raw diff output,' which is accurate for a read operation. No side effects are mentioned, but none are expected.

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 brief (3 sentences plus parameter list) and front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple operation, input schema with 3 parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. No gaps remain.

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?

The description includes a dedicated 'Args:' section that adds meaning beyond the input schema: it explains 'repository' and 'workspace' as slugs and notes default behavior when not provided. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is excellent.

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's function: 'Get the diff/changes for a pull request' and 'see what code changes are included in a pull request.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and differentiates from sibling tools like get_pull_request and get_pull_request_comments.

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 includes 'Use this tool to see what code changes are included in a pull request,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling tool names imply the distinction.

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