Commit details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: merge commits are diffed against their first parent, rename detection yields old paths, and it reports the first tag containing the commit. It omits cost/pagination behavior for very large commits, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads 'Inspect one commit' and then lists the payload; every clause carries information. The enumerated list is long but each item earns its place given the tool's breadth.

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?

An output schema exists, so the extended enumeration of return fields is partly redundant, while the description still omits any usage context against the ten sibling tools. Adequate for calling the tool, but not complete for selecting it.

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%, with both ref and repo_path including format details (abbreviated hash, HEAD~2, sub-folder scoping) in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect one commit') and enumerates exactly what it returns, making the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like search_commits or find_change, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to reach for this tool over search_commits, file_history, or find_change, nor does it state any prerequisite such as needing a local repo. It is purely a description of output content, leaving all routing decisions to inference.

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