get_pull_request_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'optional filtering' but does not explain output format, pagination, how filters interact, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no supporting 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function and optional filtering without waste. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain what the diff includes, how filters combine, or any edge cases, making the tool harder to use correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'optional filtering' adds general context for the include/exclude and file_path parameters but does not provide syntax or behavioral details beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the diff/changes for a pull request with optional filtering.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pull_request (which likely returns metadata) and get_file_content (which fetches file contents).

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 usage for retrieving pull request changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions or specific circumstances, though the purpose itself suggests the main use case.

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