bb_get_diff_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the non-obvious reconstruction mechanism (walking /commits/<sha>/diff along branch lineage), the exclusive/inclusive bounds of from/until, and the preview truncation to ~400 chars. It does not mention potential failures or auth requirements, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds default behavior, reconstruction mechanics, and output format—each sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the shape of each entry. It covers defaults, semantics, and reconstruction. It could mention ordering or error cases, but for a read-only diff summary the provided information is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%, with from and until already described in the schema. The description reinforces the semantic relationship (from is base/exclusive, until is head/inclusive, defaults to default branch) and adds the lineage walking detail, but it adds nothing for projectKey and repoSlug, which remain undocumented in both schema and description. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 gets a per-file summary of a diff between two refs, identifying the specific resource and verb. It also lists the output structure (path, status, +N/−N counts, preview), which distinguishes it from full-diff siblings like bb_get_diff.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bb_get_diff, bb_get_commit_diff, or bb_get_pull_request_diff_summary. The description implies usage by framing it as a per-file summary, but it never states conditions or points to sibling tools.

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