List commit diffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Description adds that it returns files and patch hunks, but does not disclose pagination behavior, unidiff option effects, or how Git refs are resolved beyond the schema.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, with the action and target front-loaded. No redundant detail or filler.

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?

For a read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits any clarification of the optional unidiff and pagination parameters and provides no guidance on conflicting use cases with MR diffs.

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 only 40%, documenting sha and project but not page, per_page, or unidiff. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving three parameters unexplained.

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?

Specific verb 'Return' + resource 'files and patch hunks' + scope 'changed by one GitLab commit'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_merge_request_diffs and get_commit.

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?

Purpose implies usage for a single commit's diff, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_merge_request_diffs or get_commit. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.

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