Show a repository's Git graph in AI Coach

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the app reads .git locally, never runs git, never touches the network, and the model only receives a small summary rather than the history. This gives an agent confidence about privacy, side effects, and what the action will/won't do.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then covers prerequisites, behavior, and usage conditions. Every sentence adds value and none are redundant with the schema beyond the path emphasis, which is acceptable for such a critical parameter.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the model receives (a summary of branch/commit/ref counts) and that full history is not exposed. Minor gaps remain around invalid paths or non-repository folders, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the description mostly re-emphasizes the path requirement already present in the schema. It does not add meaningful semantics for locale or mascotId beyond their schema descriptions, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: opening the commit graph (branches, tags, merges) of a local Git repository, with a helpful VS Code Git Graph analogy. It also explicitly scopes the tool to 'when the user asked to see the repository history or graph,' distinguishing it from file-viewing and note-manipulation siblings.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition ('Use only when the user asked to see the repository history or graph') and a clear prerequisite (absolute path of a folder containing .git). This effectively tells an agent when to choose this tool and what input it must have ready.

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