Get pull request diff statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior; it only states the return content. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, defaults for optional parameters, or error/edge-case behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; output categories are front-loaded and every word contributes. The brevity is appropriate to the simple stated purpose.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete: it omits defaults, optional-parameter behavior, and return shape, and does not route the agent to the right sibling 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?

Schema covers only 3 of 6 parameters; the description adds no parameter semantics. 'Largest changed files' hints at largestFilesLimit, but maxFiles and iterationId remain unexplained, and the description doesn't clarify relationships between parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('pull request diff statistics'), and enumerates the output categories (additions, deletions, file counts, largest changed files). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_pull_request_diff or get_pull_request_changed_files.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_pull_request_diff, get_pull_request_changed_files, or get_pull_request_file_diff. The word 'aggregate' implies a stats use case, but no condition, exclusion, or alternative is named.

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