list_pull_request_files

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral details such as pagination, response format, authentication, or rate limits. For a tool that may return many files, this is a notable omission.

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 sentence with a direct docs link. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every word contributes to the purpose.

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 straightforward list operation, the description provides enough to understand the core purpose, but it lacks explicit mention of pagination or output characteristics. The docs link helps, but the description alone does not fully prepare an agent, especially given the absence of an output schema and annotations.

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 description adds no parameter information. The schema describes 3 of 5 parameters (60% coverage), but the pagination parameters (page, per_page) lack semantic descriptions. With coverage below 80%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving those parameters under-explained.

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 tool's function: 'List the files changed in a GitHub pull request.' The verb 'List' and resource 'files changed' are specific and immediately distinguish it from sibling tools like list_pull_request_commits or get_pull_request.

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 when to use the tool (when you need the list of files changed in a PR) and the context is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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