list_pull_request_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 states the primary function and does not mention pagination (page/per_page), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the returned commit list. This leaves the agent with incomplete knowledge of side effects or response handling.

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, clear sentence with a helpful documentation link. It is perfectly front-loaded and contains zero filler, making it highly concise while still providing actionable information.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimal. It omits pagination behavior, return data format, and does not distinguish usage context from sibling tools like list_pull_request_reviews or list_commits. For a tool with several similar siblings, this level of detail is insufficient for confident agent selection.

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 provides descriptions for owner, repo, and pull_number, but page and per_page lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information, failing to clarify the optional pagination parameters beyond their names and defaults. With 60% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 the action 'List' and the resource 'commits on a GitHub pull request.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits (which lists repo-level commits) and list_pull_request_files. The verb and target are unambiguous.

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 (when you need commits tied to a specific pull request) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_commits or get_pull_request. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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