nexus_git_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details not in the annotations: pagination behavior and binary file flagging. These traits help the agent understand what to expect from the output without overexplaining.

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, consisting of two short, front-loaded sentences. It communicates the core functionality and key features without any wasteful words or repetition.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description must convey return behavior. It mentions stat summary, paginated hunks, and binary file flagging, giving a basic but adequate sense of the output. However, it does not explain how pagination is handled (e.g., page tokens), which is a notable gap for a tool without an output schema.

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 fully describes the single 'staged' parameter with a default value and description (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a git diff viewer, specifying that it provides a stat summary, paginated hunks, and flags binary files. This goes beyond a simple restatement and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are git diff-related.

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 its usage (for viewing git diffs) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There are no sibling diff tools to differentiate from, so the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable, but the guidance is only implied.

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