get_commit

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation, such as response scope, required permissions, or rate-limit implications.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. 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 read-only commit fetch, the description is nearly sufficient, especially with an output schema and read-only annotation present. However, it misses the opportunity to explicitly differentiate itself from list_repo_commits, which is important for tool selection among these siblings.

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 should compensate for the parameters. It mentions SHA, which clarifies the lookup key, but it says nothing about owner or repo, which are required and could benefit from at least a note that they identify the repository.

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 'Get a single commit by SHA' names a specific verb, resource, and the key identifier. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling list_repo_commits by emphasizing the singular commit and SHA-based lookup.

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 when the agent already has a SHA and needs one commit, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_repo_commits or other commit-related tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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