getPullRequestCommits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List commits' and does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, response shape, required context like workspace/repo, or any read-only guarantees, which are important for a list operation with page and pagelen parameters.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy, although it may be too sparse to fully support the tool's usage.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and low parameter coverage, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain pagination, required identifiers, or what the returned commit list contains, so an agent likely cannot invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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 only 20%, with only pull_request_id described. The description adds no meaning for page, pagelen, repo_slug, or workspace, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage and leaves most parameters unexplained.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('commits on a pull request'), so an agent can immediately understand what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like getPullRequestDiff or getPullRequestActivity, but the resource 'commits' is distinct enough to avoid major confusion.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or exclusions such as 'use getPullRequestDiff for changed files instead,' leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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