pr_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. It only says 'Get the full diff' with no disclosure of auth requirements, error behavior, output format, or any side effects. It gives minimal behavioral information beyond what the name implies.

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: one main sentence plus a structured Args list. There is no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally complete: it identifies the action and lists parameters. However, it omits context about which parameters are required (beyond schema), defaults, and how the diff is returned (e.g., unified/patch format). It also lacks any guidance on when to choose this over similar PR 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?

The schema has no descriptions for properties (0% coverage), and the description compensates by listing each arg with a short explanation: 'pr_id: PR ID number', 'workspace: Workspace slug', 'repo: Repository slug'. This adds basic meaning (e.g., format hints), but it does not clarify optionality, defaults, or how workspace/repo are resolved, leaving gaps.

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 'Get the full diff of a pull request' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full diff of a pull request'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pr_diffstat (which gets diff statistics) and get_pull_request (which gets PR metadata). The word 'full' also clarifies the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention pr_diffstat, pr_commits, or get_pull_request, nor does it give context on prerequisites or typical scenarios. The Args list only documents parameters, not usage.

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