bb_get_pull_request_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns text/plain diff output, but does not mention that the output_format parameter can return JSON or Toon, nor any other behaviors like authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and somewhat inconsistent with the schema's output_format options.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return type. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function, with no fluff or 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It mentions the default text/plain return, but does not mention the alternative output formats (json, toon) or the filtering/context parameters. Relying on the schema for parameter details, but missing the output format flexibility makes it less 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it does not explain the path, context, filter, or output_format parameters. The schema already covers these details, so the description adds no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('raw unified diff for a pull request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_request_diffstat (which returns stats) and bb_get_diff (generic diff). It also states the return type ('text/plain diff output').

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 like bb_get_pull_request or bb_get_diff. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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