get_file_patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It says 'Get a textual patch' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how revisions are resolved, what happens on missing files, or what format the returned patch uses. This is a minimal statement without operational expectations.

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, maintenance-free sentence with no redundant words. Every term, including 'textual', 'one file', and 'two project revisions', carries relevant information.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is too sparse. An agent cannot fully know the return contract, error conditions, revision ordering, or whether the patch is unified vs. another format.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter descriptions and the description contributes almost nothing to parameter meaning. Names like 'base_revision' and 'head_revision' are somewhat self-explanatory, but their exact ordering, value format, and relationship to 'project_id' remain unspecified.

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 identifies the operation ('Get a textual patch') and the precise resource scope ('one file between two project revisions'). This separates it from read_file and from generic get_diff, though it does not explicitly name the boundary.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_diff or read_change_file. There is no mention of a preferred context, such as per-file patch analysis, nor any exclusions.

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