getCommitDetails

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

Description adds value over annotations by specifying returned fields. However, it does not disclose potential performance impact of including patches on large commits or that it operates on the current repository. Annotations already indicate read-only nature.

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?

Description is concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly more structured but avoids redundancy.

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 no output schema, description lists major output fields. However, it does not specify return format (single object vs. array), nor clarify that it works on the current Git repository. Adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with well-described parameters (commitHash, includePatch, filePath). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming optional diff patch.

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?

Description clearly states it returns full commit details including author, date, message, changed files, and optional diff patch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getGitLog (lists commits) or getDiffBetweenRefs (compares refs).

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as getGitLog for listing commits or getDiffBetweenRefs for comparing branches. Lacks context for appropriate use cases.

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