Get Commit Diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a solid baseline. The description adds value by mentioning 'diff-size guardrails,' which alerts the agent to potential truncation or limits—a behavioral trait not captured by 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, succinct and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for when to use, parameters) and does not earn its place by also covering parameter details, which would improve clarity without much additional length.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits parameter explanations, return value format, error states, and edge cases like truncated diffs. The 'diff-size guardrails' hint is helpful but insufficient.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (sha, project_id, unidiff). The schema provides only field names and types, so the description fails to add meaning or usage context for parameters.

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 'Retrieve the diff for a specific commit' with a verb and a specific resource. It also mentions 'diff-size guardrails,' which adds useful nuance and helps distinguish this from sibling tools like gitlab_get_commit (metadata) or gitlab_get_merge_request_diff (MR diff).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies usage for specific commit diffs but does not mention alternatives like gitlab_get_merge_request_diff or conditions like large diffs being truncated. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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