bb_get_pull_request_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the key behavioral trait: the tool returns one large unified diff text covering all changed files. This is meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it does not mention read-only guarantees or error 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, focused sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and the key output characteristic is front-loaded.

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 simple read operation the description is mostly sufficient: it states exactly what is returned. However, without annotations or an output schema, and with limited parameter documentation, an agent gets no guidance on parameter semantics or how this differs from closely related sibling tools.

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 33%, with only prId having a description. The description adds little to the meaning of projectKey or repoSlug and does not compensate for the low schema coverage, beyond broadly referencing 'a PR'.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('full unified diff for a PR'), and clarifies the output as 'all changed files as one large diff text'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from summary or individual-file diff siblings like bb_get_pull_request_diff_summary and 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?

The description implies the use case: when you need the complete unified diff of a pull request. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as bb_get_diff or bb_get_pull_request_diff_summary, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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