get_pr_file_changes

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the output and operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or auth requirements. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 brief and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose, then return format, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in depth, yet it does. It covers the core functionality, return structure, and parameters. Minor omissions like error handling or pagination are acceptable for a simple list 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds clear meaning to both parameters: pr_url_or_id (full URL or numeric ID) and working_directory (optional path for context resolution). This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 it lists files changed in a PR with iteration metadata. The return format and key fields are specified. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_pr_file_contents (file content) and get_pull_request (PR details).

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 mentions it uses the latest iteration, providing some context but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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