blame_line_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the return type ('Dictionary with line range attributions and evidence sources') and uses 'Get' to imply a read operation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, performance characteristics, or error handling, which are relevant for a blame operation.

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 compact and orderly: a one-line purpose, an Args list, and a Returns note. No redundant sentences; every line contributes information, making it highly scannable.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, all parameters, and return type, which is sufficient for a simple read tool. However, it lacks usage guidance and caveats (e.g., behavior with invalid line ranges or when to prefer get_file_history), so it is not fully complete given the absence of annotations.

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 input schema has no descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: file_path as a relative kernel tree path, start_line and end_line as 1-indexed integers, and repo as an optional filter. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema types and titles.

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 'Get commit attribution for a specific line range in a file,' which identifies the tool's specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_file_history (file-level history) and search_commits (query-based search).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional, with no mention of context, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage independently.

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