git_last_commit_for_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention important traits like whether directory is required or optional, branch scope, behavior when the file is not found, or any side effects. This is insufficient.

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 that directly conveys the purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about usage, behavior, and result format. The current description is a minimal, functional statement but lacks the depth needed for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool in diverse 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 schema has zero description coverage and the tool description does not compensate. The two parameters, 'filePath' and 'directory', are not explained beyond the implicit meaning of 'file'. 'directory' is completely unexplained, and there is no mention of required vs optional or expected format.

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 specific action ('Find the most recent commit') and the resource ('a specific file'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_recent_commits (which likely lists commits without file focus) and git_last_commit_files (which likely lists files in the last commit). The phrase 'where a specific file changed' provides clear scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools such as git_file_history or git_recent_commits. This is a clear gap.

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