list_pr_commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but falls short. It does not mention that results are paginated (the schema includes limit and start parameters), nor does it clarify that 'all commits' may be limited by default (max 25). It also fails to specify output format, ordering, or how commits are defined relative to the PR. The word 'all' could mislead users into expecting every commit regardless of pagination.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words or repetition, making it extremely efficient while still conveying the core 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?

Despite the tool's moderate complexity (pagination, PR association, no output schema), the description provides minimal context. It does not clarify what 'part of a pull request' means (e.g., commits on the source branch), how pagination is handled, or what fields are returned. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks behavioral and return-value details, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., that limit and start control pagination). Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have reinforced key parameter behavior.

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 and specifically states the tool's function: 'List all commits that are part of a pull request'. It uses a specific verb (list) and a distinct resource (commits within a pull request), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_branch_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as when needing branch commits instead (list_branch_commits), nor does it reference any sibling tools or usage context. The only implication is that it is used for PR commits, but no explicit differentiation is offered.

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