Analisar diff de Pull Request

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

The description discloses a behavioral detail: applying a deterministic filter before calling the LLM. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations provided, this leaves gaps in transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and add a key behavioral detail. Every part earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, parameter descriptions are missing, and usage context is vague. The description could better prepare the agent for parameter semantics and boundaries.

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% (no descriptions in input schema), so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'diff' indirectly but does not describe 'prTitle' or 'prNumber', leaving their purpose unclear.

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 a specific action ('analisa um diff de PR do GitHub') with a focused purpose ('riscos de segurança e vazamento de dados'). It distinguishes itself as a security analysis tool, and since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not required.

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 security analysis of PR diffs and mentions a filter for non-code files, but it does not explicitly specify when to use the tool, when not to, or provide alternatives. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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