getPullRequestDiffStat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the tool returns aggregate file-level statistics rather than raw diff content, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default page sizes, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though 'Get' implies it.

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 filler. It is concise and readable, though it could have added a brief note about pagination without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do more than this. It explains the output type but omits how page/pagelen affect results, which repository context might be needed, and how this relates to getPullRequestDiff. An agent could call it with the required parameter, but handling pagination or choosing the right sibling would be uncertain.

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% because only pull_request_id has a description. The tool description adds no meaning for page, pagelen, repo_slug, or workspace, which is a significant gap given the low coverage. The description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters but does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get file-level change statistics for a pull request') and clarifies the output scope with 'files added/modified/removed, lines changed'. This helps distinguish it from getPullRequestDiff, though it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus getPullRequestDiff, getPullRequest, or getPullRequestCommits. The word 'statistics' implies a use case, but no explicit conditions or alternatives are provided.

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