get_commit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the commit doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists parameters and return values in separate sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be more integrated with the main text.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral details (like error handling) and doesn't fully explain the return format beyond listing fields. Given the low complexity, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description provides parameter semantics in the 'Args' section, explaining what 'repo_slug' and 'commit' represent. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds valuable meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., what constitutes a valid repo_slug or commit hash format), keeping it at a baseline level.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific commit.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('commit'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_commits' or 'compare_commits' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_commits' (for multiple commits) or 'compare_commits' (for comparing commits), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage.

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