get_pull_request_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return nature ('changed files and patches'), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, size limits, permissions, or truncation behavior for large PRs — significant omissions for a list-style read tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here partly reflects missing detail rather than tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation and safety is implied by the 'Get' verb. However, with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unsaid about scope, limits, and how it differs from sibling retrieval tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. owner, repo, and number are self-evident names, but the description adds no meaning about expected formats, whether number is a PR index, or any 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('changed files and patches for a pull request'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't differentiate itself from the very similar sibling get_pull_request_diff, which is the main gap preventing a 5.

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 on when to use this over get_pull_request_diff, get_pull_request, or build_review_report, all of which overlap in scope. The agent is left to infer the distinction between 'files/patches' and 'diff' entirely on its own.

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