gitBlame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the file must exist, whether it works on uncommitted changes, or any performance implications. The description primarily focuses on purpose rather than behavioral traits.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences contain all necessary information without waste. Every word contributes to purpose or scope.

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 rich schema (line ranges) and read-only annotation, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output (per-line modifier and commit). No output schema exists, but the purpose is clear enough 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (filePath, startLine, endLine). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the phrase 'per-line' aligns with line parameters but doesn't enhance their semantics.

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 provides 'Per-line last modifier and commit' and specifies the use case: 'Trace why code was written or find the introducing commit.' This distinctively identifies the tool's purpose and separates it from sibling tools like gitLog or gitDiff.

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 usage (tracing code origin) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitLog, gitDiff, or getCommitDetails. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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