Inspect commit

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the burden is lower. The description adds one useful trait beyond annotations: the patch is 'bounded,' signaling size limits rather than a full diff, though it never says what the bound is or whether history can be truncated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the returned artifacts come first. Every clause contributes information.

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 enumerates what comes back (metadata, stats, patch), which is the right thing to summarize. It falls short on the undocumented repository parameter and the absent guidance about when to prefer git_history.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. 'A full Git hash' restates what the regex pattern already enforces and adds nothing, while the 'repository' parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving half the inputs unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb (Read) and enumerates the resources returned: commit metadata, file statistics, and a bounded patch. The phrase 'for a full Git hash' signals this is a single-commit lookup, which implicitly separates it from git_history, though the sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for inspecting one commit given a full hash, versus git_history for ranges or logs. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the agent to guess at the boundary with git_history.

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