Get Commit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). It is adequate but does not augment the annotations.

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 sentence that is highly concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is minimal. It omits typical commit fields returned (e.g., author, message, date), which an agent might need to anticipate the response. It is adequate but could be more informative.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add parameter context. It explains that the 'sha' parameter can accept a SHA, branch, or tag reference, which is helpful. However, it does not explain 'stats' or 'project_id'. This adds partial value but leaves gaps.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'a specific commit', and specifies the means by SHA, branch, or tag reference. This distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_commits (plural) and gitlab_get_commit_diff. However, the input schema only has a 'sha' parameter, which is somewhat inconsistent with the mention of branch or tag, creating slight 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_commits, gitlab_get_commit_diff, or other retrieval tools. The description lacks context about use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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