bb_get_pull_request_diffstat

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. It only states 'Get the diffstat', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation might be expensive. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the purpose. No wasted words. Every part 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?

The tool is simple (3 parameters, no output schema). The description states it returns a 'summary of changed files', but does not specify the exact structure or content (e.g., which fields are included: file paths, added/deleted lines?). While an agent may infer common diffstat patterns, the omission of return format details leaves some uncertainty. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters described in schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting; description does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('diffstat of a pull request'), and provides a brief explanation ('summary of changed files'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_request_diff (which gets full diff) and bb_get_pull_request (which gets PR details). This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bb_get_pull_request_diff). The description implies usage for obtaining a summary of changes, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons. It is adequate but not helpful for decision-making without context.

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