Get Pull Request Diffstat

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing pagination (page_size, max_pages), default values, maximum recommendations, and a warning for large fetches. It also describes the return format (status, lines_added/removed, new.path). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every sentence is informative, no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and provides details in a logical order. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the output schema (mentioned), the description covers return fields adequately. Parameters are fully described with sensible defaults and limits. The note about warning thresholds provides important context. No gaps remain for an AI agent to invoke 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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all 5 parameters: repo_slug, pull_request_id, workspace, page_size, and max_pages, including defaults and recommended limits. This compensates thoroughly 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 clearly states 'Get file modification statistics for a pull request with pagination support', specifying the verb ('Get'), resource ('pull request diffstat'), and key feature (pagination). The name and title align, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_pull_request_diff which focuses on diff content.

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 usage for retrieving diff statistics and provides pagination parameters. It mentions a warning for large fetches but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_pull_request_commits or get_pull_request_diff. However, the context is clear enough for selecting this tool.

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