Pull request diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only states what the tool returns, but does not mention any constraints like file size limits, pagination for large diffs, or permission requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 a single sentence with 13 words, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices some completeness (e.g., no mention of output format), making it slightly less than ideal. It earns its place with no redundancy.

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 complexity (simple read tool) and absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for a basic understanding. However, it lacks details on the diff format, handling of large diffs, or any potential truncation. The overall context is adequate but has gaps.

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 input schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Returns the PR's full unified diff', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_pull_request (which returns metadata) by highlighting the diff and its use as a basis for first-pass review.

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 a use case ('first-pass review'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_pull_request, get_pull_request_comments). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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