get_pull_request_diff

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses return type (unified diff, addition/deletion stats) and optional limit parameter. Being a read operation, no side effects expected; description adequately sets expectations.

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 with immediate use-case statement, followed by parameter summary and see-also. No fluff, front-loaded, 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?

No output schema exists; description sufficiently explains return type. Mentions limit parameter but could clarify pagination (e.g., if more than limit files). Overall adequate for a diff retrieval tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage. Description adds context: default limit of 50 and clarifies required parameters (owner, name, pull_iid). Adds value beyond schema by specifying default limit value.

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?

Description clearly states it returns unified diffs and stats for code changes in a pull request, using verb 'review' and resource 'pull request diff'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pull_request (metadata) and comment_on_pull_request.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you need to review the actual code changes' and lists related tools (get_pull_request, comment_on_pull_request) as alternatives. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites, but context is clear.

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