get_pull_request_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get list') but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., file names, change types, pagination), error conditions, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how parameters interact (e.g., repository vs. workingDirectory). For a tool with multiple optional parameters and no structured output, more context is needed for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented there. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that it handles both pull requests and merge requests, which is already covered by the schema's 'provider' enum and optional fields. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get list') and resource ('files changed in a pull request or merge request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'fetch_pull_request' or 'get_merge_request_changes', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'fetch_pull_request' or 'get_merge_request_changes'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing pull/merge request, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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