git_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Shows' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format (e.g., raw commit data, patch, or summary), error handling, or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the complexity of a Git operation with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what the output looks like (e.g., commit details, diff, or raw content), how errors are handled, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable use.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'contents of a commit' but doesn't explain what 'repo_path' and 'revision' mean (e.g., path to repository, commit hash or branch name). Without this, the agent lacks context to use the parameters correctly beyond their basic types.

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 the verb ('shows') and resource ('contents of a commit'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like git_log (which shows commit history) or git_diff (which shows differences), leaving some ambiguity about what specific content is displayed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like git_log, git_diff, and git_status available, there's no indication of whether this shows full commit metadata, file changes, or other details, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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