get_pull_request_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the return format (unified diff? file list? truncated?), size limits, pagination, or auth requirements. For a read tool keyed to Bitbucket, the lack of any behavioral context is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, and the key noun is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but there is no padding to trim.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should explain what the diff response looks like and any limits, but it offers only the bare purpose. Required parameters are clear from the schema, but return-value semantics are entirely absent.

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 100% and each of the three parameters is documented in the schema (pr_id, repo_slug, workspace), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('diff of a pull request'), which distinguishes it from the metadata-oriented get_pull_request sibling. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, but the noun 'diff' carries the differentiation.

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 on when to use this versus get_pull_request, get_pull_request_activity, or any other sibling. An agent must infer that 'diff' means code changes rather than metadata or comments.

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