Get commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response includes stats and can optionally include a diff, but does not mention truncation behavior, response format, or other behavioral details. It provides some value beyond annotations but not rich context.

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 is perfectly concise. Every word adds value and there is no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and good annotations/schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains that the tool returns stats and optionally a diff, but without an output schema it does not describe the response structure in detail. For a read-only get operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description does not add much beyond the schema; it rephrases the include_diff behavior but does not clarify relationships like max_chars applying only when include_diff is true.

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 the tool returns a single commit with stats and optionally its diff. The verb 'get' matches the tool name, and 'one commit' distinguishes it from list/compare operations.

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 context of retrieving a single commit is clear, and the 'one commit' phrasing implies use when a specific commit is needed rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like gitlab_list_commits or gitlab_compare.

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