Get pull request diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It indicates the output is raw text, implying a read-only fetch operation. However, it does not mention potential large response sizes, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple fetch tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the purpose and output format. The main minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the diffstat sibling, but the phrase 'unified diff ... as raw text' implicitly covers this.

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 input schema describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including fallback behavior and limits. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and clearly identifies the resource ('unified diff of a pull request') and output format ('raw text'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool bb_get_pull_request_diffstat, which would return statistics rather than the diff itself.

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 retrieving a raw diff when needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like bb_get_pull_request_diffstat or bb_get_pull_request. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative usage, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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