Code Buddy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Show git diff' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires git repository initialization, what happens with invalid paths, output format (e.g., patch format), or error handling. It lacks context on permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 with just two words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with potential complexity (git operations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., diff output as text), error conditions, or how it integrates with the git workflow. For a tool with three parameters and behavioral nuances, this is inadequate.

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 the schema fully documents parameters (filepath, staged, cwd). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how staged interacts with filepath) or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Show git diff' states the basic purpose (display git differences) but is vague about scope and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like git_log and git_status. It doesn't specify what kind of diff (e.g., working directory vs. staged vs. commit comparisons) or what resources are involved.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_status (which shows status changes) or git_log (which shows commit history). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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