get_ai_code_commit_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses 'Limited alpha' status and the ability to accept comma-separated hashes. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though implied by GET) or any authentication or rate-limit requirements.

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 concise: a one-line purpose, a caveat, and parameter docs. It is front-loaded with the main action. Some may prefer more structure, but it is efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (handles return values), the description is adequate but lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like list_ai_code_commits. The 'Limited alpha' note adds useful context, but more usage context would improve completeness.

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 clarify parameters. It adds that commit_hash can be a comma-separated list and branch is an optional filter, providing meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'commit detail / blame', and specifies the HTTP method and endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_ai_code_commits (which lists commits) and download_ai_code_commits_csv (which downloads CSV). Not a tautology.

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 for fetching details of specific commit(s) via the commit_hash parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_ai_code_commits for browsing). No exclusions or when-not-to guidelines are provided.

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