Git diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two important traits: the diff is 'bounded' and sensitive files are excluded. However, it leaves those terms undefined and does not mention read-only behavior, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main safety behavior is front-loaded, and the supported modes are stated 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?

The description is adequate for a moderately complex tool with an output schema, but it leaves important invocation details unexplained, especially project/path semantics and what 'bounded' means. An agent could call the tool correctly for simple cases but would likely guess on parameter usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It hints at the roles of staged, baseRef, and headRef via the supported diff modes, but it does not explain the required 'project' parameter or the optional 'path' parameter, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Return ... diff') and clearly identifies the three supported modes: working-tree, staged, and ref-to-ref. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_status and git_log without ambiguity.

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?

It states the concrete scenarios in which the tool is applicable (working-tree, staged, or ref-to-ref diffs), providing clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the mode enumeration is sufficient to route an agent away from status/log tools.

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