git_git_diff

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states it shows diffs for uncommitted changes or a specific commit, but does not specify whether it shows staged vs unstaged changes or behavior for binary files. Adequate but not thorough.

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, 16 words, front-loaded with core functionality. No redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with output schema, description covers the main use cases. However, it could be more precise about default diff behavior (e.g., against HEAD, staged vs unstaged), leaving minor gaps for advanced users.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the only parameter 'sha', the description adds crucial context: 'by SHA' explains its purpose and default behavior (omitted = uncommitted changes). This compensates well for schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows diffs of uncommitted changes or a specific commit by SHA. Verb and resource are specific, differentiating from siblings like git_git_status or git_git_log.

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?

Description implies when to use (when needing to see changes), but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives like git_git_status for file-level changes. Usage is clear from context but not formally guided.

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