List pull request files

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the page is bounded, patches may be absent/truncated by GitHub, and it never modifies GitHub. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations for response completeness.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core function, then a caveat and pointer to the diff tool. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description provides essential behavioral nuances (pagination bounds, patch truncation, exact SHAs) and a clear sibling alternative. It is fully sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces pagination ('bounded page') and page semantics but does not add detailed parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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 the tool returns a bounded page of files changed by a pull request, with exact base/head SHAs. It distinguishes itself from gh_get_pr_diff by explicitly naming that sibling for the unified diff, and the read-only nature is front-loaded.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool vs. gh_get_pr_diff: if you need the bounded unified diff, use gh_get_pr_diff. This is clear alternative guidance and excludes the diff use case, making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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