bb_get_pull_request_diff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully inform about behavior. It only states 'Get the diff', which is a read operation, but does not disclose any potential constraints, side effects, authentication needs, or output characteristics (e.g., format, size limits).

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 extremely concise at 8 words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could include more detail, for a simple tool, this level of conciseness is acceptable and not wasteful.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the diff response contains (unified diff, file list, etc.), how pagination works if any, or error scenarios. A more complete description would improve usability.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no extra information; it only restates the tool's purpose. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already explains parameters sufficiently.

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 directly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('the diff of a pull request'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like 'bb_get_pull_request_diffstat' (which returns statistics) and 'bb_get_pull_request' (which returns PR metadata).

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of using 'bb_get_pull_request_diffstat' for summary data or 'bb_get_pull_request' for details. The description lacks any contextual cues for selection.

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