git_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates the safe read-only nature implicitly via "Show," but omits meaningful behavior for a diff tool: whether staged/unstaged/untracked changes are included and what the output format is. A 3 reflects adequate but incomplete disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by stating the operation and its optional narrowing.

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?

With an output schema present, the return shape needn't be described, and the single optional parameter is covered. The only shortfall is the unstated scope of "changes" (staged vs unstaged vs untracked), which an agent may want to know.

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 only parameter semantics come from the description, which says path limits results to one file. That adds real meaning, but it doesn't clarify whether path accepts a file vs directory or relative vs absolute paths.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (uncommitted changes) with a scoping qualifier, which cleanly separates it from commit-oriented siblings like git_log and git_blame. It stops just short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Optionally limited to one file" implies when the path argument is useful, giving implied usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus git_log/git_blame, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., must be inside a repo).

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