List pull request commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explicitly stating it never checks out code or modifies GitHub, and clarifies the bounded-page behavior with base/head SHA inclusion. No contradiction exists.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, safety, and pagination. It could optionally mention ordering (e.g., chronological) but that is a minor gap, and the output schema likely provides return structure details.

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% with each parameter (owner, repo, number, page, per_page) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context, so it earns the baseline score of 3 without needing to compensate.

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 returns one bounded page of commits for a pull request, along with base and head SHAs. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_get_commit (single commit) and gh_compare_commits (comparison).

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 communicates that the tool is read-only and returns a bounded page, which implies usage for safely inspecting PR commits without side effects. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when to use this vs. other listing tools like gh_list_pr_files or gh_get_pr_diff, so guidance is merely implied.

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