git_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'read-only', which is the key behavioral trait for a show commandiscovers potential side effects or mutation. The output schema covers return format, so no need to describe that here.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, front-loaded with the core behavior. The read-only qualifier is parenthetical but doesn't waste space.

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 simple single-command tool, the description covers what the tool does, the parameter format, and reads as read-only. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already structured elsewhere. Minor gap: no mention of git_diff use case distinction, but not required for calling the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone 'ref' parameter. It does so by specifying that the value is a hash or ref identifying a commit, which is meaningful beyond the bare schema type 'string'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show'), resource ('a specific commit's diff'), and method ('by hash/ref'), with a clear read-only scope. This distinguishes it from git_status and git_log, and the 'specific commit' qualifier separates it from a generic git_diff.

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 (you have a commit hash/ref and want its diff), but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like git_diff or git_log, nor state exclusions. The context is clear but leaves selection among similar tools to inference.

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