get_pr_file_contents

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format (list of dicts with keys), error handling (omitted from successes, included as error entries with ai_guidance), and behavior when file_paths is None. Lacks details on auth or rate limits but covers core behavioral traits.

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?

Description is well-structured with a short summary line, then return format, then a note about behavior, then a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

Given no annotations and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers return format, error handling, and all parameters. It is complete for an agent to understand usage and behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains each parameter clearly: pr_url_or_id (full URL or numeric ID), file_paths (optional list), exclude_extensions (optional, case-insensitive, leading dot optional), working_directory (optional). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Fetch file contents for files changed in a PR.' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pr_file_changes (which likely only lists changes) and get_repo_file_content (which fetches a single file).

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?

Description explains optional filtering (file_paths, exclude_extensions) and default behavior when file_paths is None, but does not compare to alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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