git_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'bounded output' behavior tied to max_bytes, but it does not disclose details like what happens when max_bytes is exceeded or the exact output format. This is acceptable given the read-only annotations but not especially rich.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation context: what is read, what output to expect, and that output is bounded. Minor gaps remain around exact return formatting and truncation behavior, but these are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 only 50% schema description coverage, max_bytes and stat_only lack direct schema documentation. The description partially compensates by indicating 'bounded output' for max_bytes and 'patch or statistics' for stat_only. However, it does not fully explain the behavior or defaults of these parameters.

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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('one Git revision'), and the output content ('patch or statistics'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_log, git_diff, and git_status, which handle history listing or comparisons.

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 the tool is for inspecting a single revision's patch or stats, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like git_diff for comparing revisions or git_log for browsing history, so routing to the right sibling is left to inference.

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