git_blame_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the two-step action (blame and memory cross-reference) and the repo scope. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if line_end is omitted, or whether it triggers any side effects. Overall, it gives a reasonable behavioral snapshot but not exhaustive detail.

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 single sentence efficiently conveys the core function and purpose, with no filler. The main action and the combined memory-lookup aspect are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's essence quickly.

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?

This tool combines two operations (git blame and memory search), and while an output schema exists (not detailed here), the description does not address potential edge cases like invalid file paths, line ranges, or how memory matches are presented. The description is minimal for a tool of this complexity, leaving some operational uncertainty.

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%, meaning the description includes no parameter explanations. The schema provides basic types but leaves ambiguity, such as the default of line_end=0 (likely meaning 'to end of file' but not stated). The description adds zero value to parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Git blame') and resource ('YOUR code repo'), and clarifies the unique added action of cross-referencing team memories. This clearly distinguishes it from the numerous memory-only sibling tools, which lack the blame component. It directly answers the intended question 'who wrote this and did anyone leave notes about it?', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context (wanting to know authorship and associated memories) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on comparing with potentially similar tools like 'why_code' or 'get_memory'. This leaves an agent to infer applicability rather than being explicitly directed.

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