Get pull request file diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'locally generated unified diff,' which hints at generation but does not explain error behavior, authentication requirements, or how it differs from a server-side diff. It lacks any mention of potential failure modes, rate limits, or the meaning of 'locally generated.' This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 wasted words. It achieves brevity but may be too terse for a tool with many parameters. Still, it is structurally clean and gets to the point immediately, so a 4 is appropriate for conciseness.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too thin. It does not explain the return format, parameter semantics, or usage context relative to siblings. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without external knowledge, especially regarding optional parameters like iterationId and contextLines. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only 38%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. It does not elaborate on 'path', 'maxLines', 'startLine', 'iterationId', or 'contextLines', which are all likely to affect the diff output. Since the schema alone is insufficient and the description does not compensate, the parameter semantics are poorly conveyed.

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 action (Return) and the specific resource (locally generated unified diff for one file in a pull request). The phrase 'for one file' differentiates it from the sibling get_pull_request_diff, which likely returns diffs for all files. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage for a single-file diff but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_pull_request_diff or get_pull_request_changed_files. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, leaving the agent to infer the scope. A clear 'use this when you need a diff for one specific file' statement would improve it.

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