git_get

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states no side effects, read-only nature, return format, or error behavior. 'One git application' is a static phrase, not a behavioral statement.

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 extremely short with no fluff, but it is under-specified. 'One git application' is not a complete sentence and omits the operation. The Args block is structured clearly, but the overall lack of content makes this under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks basic purpose and usage context. It does not explain what a 'git application' is, how this lookup differs from git_list, or what an agent should do with the result. For a simple get-by-uuid tool, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the uuid parameter, so the description must compensate. It only adds 'Application uuid,' offering minimal clarification that the uuid refers to an application, but no format, example, or indication of how to discover the value. This barely adds meaning beyond the schema title 'Uuid.'

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 'One git application' is a noun phrase that hints at the resource but lacks an explicit operation verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.' It is not a pure tautology since it names the resource type, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like git_list or git_deploy.

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 is given about when to use git_get versus alternatives such as git_list, git_fetch, or git_webhook. An agent must guess the intended selection criteria and workflow context.

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