get_pr_commits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds the behavioral detail that results are 'fully paginated,' which is not in the annotations. However, it does not describe return format, ordering, or potential edge cases (e.g., empty PRs). This adds some value beyond annotations but is minimal.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose ('Lists every commit...') and then states a key requirement. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the meaning of 'pr_id', does not clarify that 'repo' likely refers to a workspace identifier, and provides no information about return format or potential errors. An agent calling this tool would lack critical context to use 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description only mentions 'repo' and that it is required, but does not explain what 'repo' represents (it references 'workspace' in the schema, but the description doesn't clarify this). The 'pr_id' parameter is completely unaddressed. With no descriptions in the schema, the tool description fails to compensate, leaving agents without semantic understanding of the parameters.

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's purpose: 'Lists every commit belonging to a pull request.' The verb 'Lists' and resource 'commits belonging to a pull request' are specific and unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_pr_diff (diff) and list_pr_comments (comments) by focusing solely on commits. The mention of 'fully paginated' adds a key detail about behavior, making the purpose even clearer.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states a requirement ('Requires an explicit `repo` argument') but does not explain when an agent should choose this over, say, get_pr_diff or list_pull_requests. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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