git_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral guarantee: it will not invoke external diff helpers, which matters for an unattended agent that could otherwise hang on an interactive pager. It does not describe output format or size, but the safety profile is already covered.

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 front-loads the core operation and immediately conveys the critical non-interactive behavior. There is zero filler or redundancy.

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 a fully documented schema and existing safety annotations, this description is nearly sufficient. It could explicitly mention that output includes commit metadata/diff, but given the standard semantics of 'git show' and the rich schema, the gap is minor.

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%: both 'revision' and 'repo_path' are already well-described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Show') and a precise resource ('one Git revision'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like git_log (which lists multiple revisions) and git_diff_unstaged/staged (which show working-tree diffs). The modifier 'without invoking external diff helpers' further pins down its niche among the git tools.

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 'one Git revision' implies this tool is for inspecting a single commit/tag/branch, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over git_log or git_diff_unstaged/staged. No alternatives are named and no exclusions are given, leaving some inference to the agent.

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