Resolve local Git review input

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: the repository path is on the server host, refs must already exist locally, and no fetch occurs. It also discloses that it compares resolved commits directly rather than a merge base. Minor gap: nothing about failure behavior for unresolvable refs.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the path/locality constraint, then the comparison semantics and exclusions. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three required params are schema-documented. Combined with the explicit out-of-scope list, an agent has everything needed to decide and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents base, head, and repository. The description only reinforces the server-host locality of the repository path, which the schema param description already states, so it adds little parameter-level value beyond the baseline.

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+resource chain: resolve two local Git refs into immutable commits plus diff metadata. The domain is fully unambiguous, and the listed siblings are all QA-orchestration tools, so cross-domain confusion is not a realistic risk.

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?

Explicitly says to choose the merge base explicitly when a merge-base comparison is needed, and enumerates the adjacent tasks it does not perform (fetching refs, inspecting uncommitted changes, building the evidence packet). That gives the agent both when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals.

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