git_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, but does not disclose other aspects like exit codes, empty-output behavior, or performance characteristics. For a simple read-only tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and optional scope, earning its place without waste.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scoping. It omits explicit sibling differentiation, but given the tool's simplicity, the information provided is sufficient 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%, so the description must explain the 'path' parameter. It says 'optionally scoped to one file', which clarifies that the path is a file path and optional. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema definition.

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 tool shows unstaged changes, uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('unstaged changes'), and mentions optional file scoping. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_status (which shows repository status) and git_log (history), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (to see unstaged changes) but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings or state when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives, so an agent must infer usage from context. This is adequate but not explicit.

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