Get commit

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds generic boilerplate ('Response: a wrapper containing the original response and a Commit model') and a ParameterError note; it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or what commit identifier is expected, so it adds little beyond the annotations.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, but the auto-generated 'Args: **kwargs / Returns / Raises' boilerplate is low-value filler that does not earn its place. Not bloated, but not tightly written either.

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 40-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameters to supply to identify the commit (project_id plus ref vs. commit_hash) or what the many other fields do.

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 schema has 40 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. Instead it says only '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request,' leaving entirely undocumented fields like ref, commit_hash, path, stats, all, since/until, and page/per_page. This does not compensate for the schema gap at all.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific commit.' This is clearer than a bare name restatement and, with the word 'specific,' hints it is the single-commit sibling of get_commits. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other commit-adjacent sibling tools (get_commit_diff, get_commit_comments, get_commit_statuses), which is why it stops at 4.

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 contains no usage context at all: no when-to-use, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as gitlab_get_commits or gitlab_get_commit_diff. An agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema.

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