git_diff

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

The description does not disclose behavioral details beyond the basic purpose. For example, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it outputs colored diffs, or if it requires a git repository. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise (two words), but it is underspecified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It does not front-load key information and lacks necessary structure.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the diff output looks like, how to interpret results, or how parameters affect behavior. Simple tools can still benefit from minimal context.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the tool description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 'Show git diff' clearly indicates the tool's verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from the sibling 'enhanced_git_diff' or specify whether it shows staged or unstaged changes. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enhanced_git_diff' or 'get_diff_stats'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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