gitlab_get_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose followed by parameter documentation. It front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary words.

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 description need not detail return values, but it does mention 'details and diff stats'. It lacks information on error conditions, pagination (if any), or behavior for invalid SHAs. Suitable for a simple get tool but could be more complete.

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 add meaning. It explains the 'sha' parameter as 'Full or short commit SHA' and 'project_path' with an example, which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide constraints like min/max length or format.

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 clearly states 'Get details and diff stats for a specific commit', specifying the verb (get), resource (commit), and output (details and diff stats). It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_list_commits which lists multiple commits.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_list_commits for searching). The description does not mention prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions.

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