git_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'non-mutating', which is a critical safety trait for this read-only operation. However, it does not disclose output format, error behavior for an unregistered project, or how the staged flag affects which changes are diffed.

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. Every word earns its place, and the most important qualifier, 'non-mutating', appears before the resource name.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is minimally callable but incomplete. It lacks staged semantics, return-value expectations, and any relationship to git_status, so an agent must rely on background git knowledge to fill 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It adds that projectId must refer to a registered project, but it says nothing about the staged parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the boolean name and default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('git diff'), scoped to a registered project, and the 'non-mutating' qualifier distinguishes it from mutating sibling tools like file_patch. An agent can clearly tell this is the diff tool and not git_status just from the wording.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The sibling git_status is not mentioned, so the description does not help an agent choose between git_diff and git_status; the only contextual clue is the registered-project scope.

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