git_blame

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool shows revision and author information; it does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, that it operates on line ranges, that it requires a git repository, or what the output looks like, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 the low complexity and full parameter schema coverage, the description does enough to allow invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should at least clarify the line-attribution nature and read-only behavior; the gaps are noticeable but not crippling for a simple git command.

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 100%, so both path and cwd are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no mention of line ranges or revision arguments), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('revision and author information for a file'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like git_log or git_show, and omits the per-line attribution that is git blame's signature, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of when git_log, git_show, or git_grep would be more appropriate, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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