getPullRequestDiff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only states 'Get the raw diff.' It doesn't disclose read-only nature, potential size, pagination, or any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but nothing more is added beyond that hint.

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 with no wasted words. Every word earns its place: 'Get' is the verb, 'raw diff' is the resource, and 'pull request' scopes it. Conciseness is ideal.

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?

With three parameters, a large sibling family, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the role of repo_slug and workspace, nor what 'raw diff' means as a return value. The agent gets just enough to identify the tool but not to safely invoke it without looking elsewhere.

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 33% (only pull_request_id is described), and the description offers nothing about repo_slug or workspace. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the role of these optional parameters ambiguous, especially since only pull_request_id is required.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the raw diff of a pull request.' The term 'raw' helps distinguish it from the sibling getPullRequestDiffStat, though it does not explicitly contrast with any related tool. This is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives like getPullRequestDiffStat or getPullRequestCommits, nor any context about when a raw diff is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and minimal description, so this dimension falls short.

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