bb_get_pr_commits

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 restates the purpose without detailing behavior such as pagination, ordering, error handling, or permission requirements. The reader learns nothing about how the tool behaves beyond the literal action.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the action and subject. There is no extraneous information or redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only listing tool, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention return value shape, pagination behavior, or sorting, which leaves some uncertainty about what the agent will receive.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already thoroughly documents each parameter, and the description does not introduce any additional semantic context.

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?

Clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('commits'), and the scope ('belong to a pull request'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_commits (repo-wide commits) and bb_get_pull_request (PR metadata), making the tool's purpose immediately evident.

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 PR-related commits, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when this tool should be preferred over similar siblings. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the context is implied rather than explicit.

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