repository_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is non-mutating ('without changing files'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't disclose what the diff output looks like, whether it includes untracked files, or any side effects like refreshing the index.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and immediately clarifies the non-mutating nature. No wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the diff includes, how staged affects results, or what the return value looks like. The read-only guarantee is helpful but not sufficient.

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 the two parameters. It does not explain what 'staged' means or what format repositoryPath should take. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('repository diff') and explicitly notes it does not change files, which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like commit_repository and deploy_repository. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but the read-only framing is clear enough.

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?

The description implies this is for inspecting changes without modifying the repository, which is useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over repository_status or commit_repository, nor does it mention the staged parameter's role in selecting what diff to read.

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