get_commit_diff

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states the action and lists parameters; it does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. The mention of default and max for context_lines is minor behavioral context.

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, well-structured with a clear header and bullet-point arguments. Every line is informative with no extraneous text.

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?

The description covers all parameters and references the output schema indirectly, but lacks usage context relative to sibling tools. No guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'get_commit_changes'. It is adequate for a straightforward tool but not fully comprehensive.

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. It explains each parameter's purpose (project key, repo slug, commit id, context lines, src path) and includes defaults and maximum for context_lines. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 the diff for a specific commit' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_commit' and 'get_commit_changes' by focusing on the diff, and the argument list further clarifies what is needed.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_commit_changes' or 'get_pull_request_diff'. The description does not mention prerequisites or situations where it is appropriate.

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