list_pr_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination but provides no details on ordering, whether all commits are returned or just the first page, or the format of the response. For a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is expected.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and key feature (pagination). Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and the existence of many sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify return format, ordering, error handling, or how pagination works (e.g., cursor vs offset). For a list operation, this leaves gaps for an agent to correctly process the output.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, covering 100% of their semantics. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'with pagination', which is already captured by the max_results parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the details.

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 explicitly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'commits on a specific pull request' with pagination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_repo_commits (list commits on a branch) and get_commit_detail (single commit), making the purpose very specific.

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 indicates the tool is for listing commits on a pull request with pagination, which implies its primary use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as get_repo_commits for branch commits. Still, the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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