git_diff_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what output to expect. It only says 'show the diff', leaving ambiguity about side effects and edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action first and conveys the key distinction efficiently.

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 being a simple tool, the description is incomplete: it doesn't specify the default behavior (staged=false means working tree), explain `repo_path`, or clarify that this is a read-only operation. With no annotations and low schema coverage, more context is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description explains the `staged` distinction ('working tree or staged changes'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it fails to mention `repo_path` at all, leaving its semantics unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is insufficient.

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 it 'Shows the diff for a repo's working tree (or staged changes)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_repo_status (status) and git_log_repo (history), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling would be more appropriate. An agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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