get_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 adds useful context: SHA can be a prefix, and the return is a dictionary with metadata and evidence sources. However, it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., ambiguous prefix, invalid SHA), failure modes, or any permissions/rate limits. The return type is only briefly mentioned.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose with no fluff.

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?

With only 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential elements: what the tool does, the inputs, and the return shape. It is sufficient for a simple metadata lookup, though it could mention ambiguous SHA resolution or the specific metadata fields returned (though output schema covers the latter).

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: 'sha: Complete or prefix commit SHA' and 'repo: Optional repository name filter.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, though it lacks examples or format details.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve detailed metadata for a specific kernel commit SHA.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_commits (search vs. retrieving a specific commit) and get_patch_details (different resource).

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 when you already have a commit SHA ('specific kernel commit SHA') and mentions an optional repo filter, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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