bb_get_pr_file_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful specificity about the result being a line-by-line diff for one file, but does not disclose details such as diff format, hunk context, or whether file metadata is included. This is acceptable because an output schema exists, but the description alone adds only moderate behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The core action, target resource, and scoping qualifiers are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on quickly.

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?

For a read-only file-diff tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description conveys the essential scope and operation. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly route the agent toward siblings like bb_get_pr_all_file_diffs or bb_get_pr_file_content, but this gap is relatively minor given the clarity of the wording.

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?

The input schema describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults for repo_slug and workspace. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that file_path targets a single file, so it meets the schema-reliant baseline without exceeding it.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('line-by-line diff'), and a precise scope ('one specific file in a pull request'). This distinguishes it from siblings like bb_get_pr_all_file_diffs and bb_get_pr_diffstat, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: when a line-by-line diff of a single file is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from sibling tool names rather than receiving direct routing guidance.

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