get_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get information') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return details, permissions, or side effects. For a simple fetch operation, the risk is low, but transparency is limited.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with a category tag. It contains no redundant or unnecessary words, and the structure is perfectly efficient.

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 is low complexity with three well-documented parameters, but the description does not mention the return payload or any output expectations. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could add value by noting typical commit details returned, but it remains minimally adequate for a simple get operation.

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 descriptions fully cover all three parameters (sha, repositoryId, organizationId) at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, relying entirely on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Get information about a commit' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (commit), and is distinct from sibling tools like list_commits. It could be more specific about what information is returned, but it unambiguously conveys the primary action.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus list_commits or other commit-related operations, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name, offering minimal contextual direction.

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