Compare two refs

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

Describes the output as raw commit diff without categorization. Does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs (though 'public repository' implies no auth), or behavior with large diffs. Adequate for a simple read operation given no annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with key action and scope. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema and simple parameter set, the description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and key constraint (public repo, no categorization). Could optionally mention output format (e.g., diff text) but sufficient for selection.

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 descriptions for 'base' and 'head' are present (50% coverage), with examples like 'v1.2.0' and 'main'. The tool description mentions 'two Git refs' but does not clarify 'owner' and 'repo' beyond 'public GitHub repository'. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Show', resource 'raw commit diff', and scope 'between two Git refs in a public GitHub repository'. Explicitly notes 'without categorization', distinguishing it from sibling 'generate_changelog' which likely categorizes.

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?

Provides context that the diff is raw and uncategorized, implicitly guiding agents to use this tool when they need a pure diff and alternative tools like 'generate_changelog' for categorized output. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives.

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