Get pull request iterations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read ('List') but does not disclose pagination behavior, whether includeCommits affects response size, what an 'iteration' contains, or any rate-limit/auth considerations. For a list-type tool with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and scope without waste. It earns its place, though it could add a brief note on includeCommits without becoming bloated.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin for a tool that lists potentially complex iteration objects. It does not explain what an iteration is, how includeCommits changes results, or what the response shape looks like. An agent would need to infer too much before calling this tool confidently.

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 75%, so the schema already documents project, repositoryId, and pullRequestId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The includeCommits parameter is undocumented in the schema and the description does not compensate, leaving its effect unclear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List reviewable iterations created by pushes to a pull request' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('iterations created by pushes to a pull request'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pull_request_commits or get_pull_request_reviewers, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling 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?

The description implies usage context: it is for listing iterations tied to pushes on a pull request. However, it does not state when to prefer this over related tools like get_pull_request_commits or get_pull_request_review_context, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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