Get pull request commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination via continuationToken, the return format of commits, or any side effects. The minimal text does not convey important behavioral traits beyond the basic listing operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It clearly conveys the core function efficiently.

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 tool with 5 parameters, pagination support, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not mention that results are paginated, what fields each commit contains, or how to use the continuationToken. An agent would lack critical information to correctly handle large result sets.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. While schema coverage is 60% (project, repositoryId, pullRequestId have descriptions), the top and continuationToken parameters remain undocumented, and the description does not clarify their purpose or usage.

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 lists commits included in a pull request, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling list_commits by scoping to pull request commits, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_commits or get_pull_request. The description only states the function without any context on selection criteria or typical use cases.

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