pr_commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and parameters. It does not mention read-only status, authentication needs, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, followed by a tidy parameter list. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple PR commit listing tool with an output schema, the purpose and parameters are covered. However, it lacks usage context, prerequisites, and alternative tool references, making it adequate 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?

All three parameters are briefly described: pr_id as a number, workspace and repo as slugs. This adds semantic value beyond the schema, which has zero descriptions. However, the explanations are minimal and do not clarify optionality, defaults, or why workspace/repo are needed.

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 a specific action: 'List commits in a pull request.' The phrase 'in a pull request' distinguishes it from repository-wide commit listing (e.g., sibling list_commits), making the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 versus alternatives like list_commits or pr_diff. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic action.

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