bb_get_pull_request_diff_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only 'Get' operation and discloses the output shape: per-file status, +N/−N counts, and first hunk. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple read tool the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and then lists the exact output fields. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 three-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the target resource and the key parts of the return value. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list, though a brief note distinguishing this tool from bb_get_diff_summary would make it fully unambiguous.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. The parameter names are self-explanatory (projectKey, repoSlug, prId), and the PR focus of the description relates to prId, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it gets a per-file summary of a pull request's changes, and lists the exact contents (status, +N/−N counts, first hunk). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_request_diff (full diff) and bb_get_pull_request (PR metadata).

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_summary or bb_get_pull_request_diff. The word 'summary' implies a use case, but no exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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