github_pulls_list_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the response carries full patch text for every changed file and large PRs return a heavy payload, which is a useful expectation-setting trait not present in the structured fields.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first defines output, the second defines the paging tactic. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return shape (per-file additions, deletions, patch text) and warns about payload size, so an agent knows what comes back. The one real gap is that it never positions itself against github_pulls_get_diff, leaving selection ambiguous among siblings.

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 all five parameters are already documented (including page and per_page defaults and the max-100 bound). The description endorses small per_page values, which is mild usage color but adds no format or syntax information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'List the files a pull request changes' and enumerates the per-file payload (additions, deletions, patch text). It is clear on its own, but does not distinguish itself from the close sibling github_pulls_get_diff, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 only guidance is operational ('keep per_page small and page through it'); there is no statement of when to use this tool versus github_pulls_get_diff, github_pulls_get or github_pulls_list. The agent gets a paging hint but no selection criteria.

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