git_diff

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but 'current uncommitted changes' is ambiguous. It does not specify whether staged changes are included (git diff vs git diff --cached), what output format is returned, or any other behavioral nuance.

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 a single short sentence with no filler words, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool definition. However, it sacrifices informational depth for brevity, which is a slight drawback.

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 lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only provides a vague phrase and omits critical details like whether staged changes are included, what the diff output looks like, and typical usage scenarios.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter information to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools, and the description does not introduce any confusion.

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 the action 'View' and the target 'current uncommitted changes', making it distinct from sibling tools like git_status (which shows status) and git_log (which shows history). The verb and resource are specific.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like git_status or git_log. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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