get_commit_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys the tool is a read operation ('Get') and discloses output characteristics (stats and patches). It does not mention potential prerequisites, rate limits, or side effects, but as a straightforward read, these are less critical. The description adds value beyond the name by specifying content.

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 with no redundant language. It states the verb, resource, and key output content efficiently, front-loading the most important information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description adequately explains the purpose and output for a simple tool with three well-documented parameters. It does not explicitly describe return structure (no output schema), but the mention of stats and patches gives a clear idea. There are no missing critical details for an agent to call this tool correctly, though it could note when not to use it, which is partially covered in usage guidelines.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on any parameters (repo, ref, owner) beyond what the schema already provides. No extra meaning is added, but the schema fully documents the parameters, so 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'detailed information for a specific commit' and explicitly mentions 'stats and modified file patches.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits or get_repository_details, which serve different purposes.

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly indicate when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios (e.g., 'use this for commit-level details, use list_commits for summaries') or exclusions. The context is implied by the naming and output specifics, but explicit guidance is absent.

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