git_diff_unstaged

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the workspace-root scoping constraint, which is useful, but it does not describe output format, whether untracked files are included, or behavior when no changes exist.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The core action and object are front-loaded, and the scoping constraint is expressed efficiently.

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 one optional parameter and a complete schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not explicitly route to git_diff_staged or clarify untracked-file behavior, but annotations and schema cover the main safety and parameter needs.

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 100% and the schema already documents repo_path as workspace-relative with a default of '.'. The description adds a subtle but meaningful constraint: the repository must be below the configured workspace root, which enriches the parameter's intended value.

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 action ('Show') and a specific resource ('unstaged Git changes'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. 'Unstaged' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling git_diff_staged, but the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 phrase 'for a repository below the configured workspace root' gives a clear scope constraint, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over git_diff_staged or git_status. Usage context is implied by 'unstaged' rather than spelled out.

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