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 mentions the output is a unified diff as plain text, which conveys a read-only, text-returning behavior. However, it does not disclose potential size limits, error behavior, or required permissions, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral context.

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. Every phrase earns its place: the verb-resource pair specifies the operation, 'as plain text' clarifies the return format, and the second sentence provides useful usage context without fluff.

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-only diff-fetching tool, the description is largely complete: it names the tool's purpose, output format, and primary use case. It lacks details about pagination, diff size limits, or error scenarios, but these are not essential for basic invocation and the input schema fully covers parameters.

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 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.

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 a specific action ('Get the unified diff') and resource ('pull request'), and notes the output is plain text. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_pull_request, which presumably returns metadata, and get_file_content, which targets a single file.

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 phrase 'This is the primary input for a code review' provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is well implied.

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