Git show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'bounded' qualifier, which hints at output size constraints, but does not elaborate on behavior when limits are exceeded or how the output is structured. Given annotation coverage, this is a minimal but acceptable addition.

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, focused sentence with zero redundancy. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool has six parameters (all optional) and an output schema (though not shown), but the description lacks explanations for parameter behavior, edge cases, or how the 'bounded' aspect is enforced. It is adequate for a simple read-only tool but does not fully cover the contextual nuances an agent might need for correct invocation.

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%, meaning no parameter documentation exists. The description does not compensate by explaining any of the six parameters (rev, path, paths, max_bytes, include_diff, context_lines). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, failing to fill the coverage gap.

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 ('Return') and names the resource ('git show output') with a qualifier ('bounded') that hints at output limits. It is clear about the core action but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like git_log or git_diff, though the 'bounded' qualifier provides a slight differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_log or git_diff. The description only states what it does without any contextual cues for selection, making it purely implicit.

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