Git Polite

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that output is never truncated (a key trait not covered by readOnlyHint or openWorldHint), mentions suitability for large files, and implies performance considerations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information, making it efficient and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics adequately without needing to explain outputs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'path' as 'File path to view diff for' and 'unified' as 'Context lines around changes', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail default values or constraints beyond what's implied.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('view complete diff') and resource ('single file'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling 'list_changes' by emphasizing no truncation. It directly answers what the tool does in the first sentence.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, listing three specific use cases (e.g., 'View the complete diff of a large file') and naming 'list_changes' as an alternative that truncates output. It clearly defines the context for selection.

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