get_commit_details

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details the return structure (standard envelope with success/error, commit fields) and implies read-only behavior. It does not disclose authentication or rate limit details, but these are acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, parameter descriptions, return explanation, and examples. Slightly verbose with the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, but every part contributes value.

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?

Despite lacking output schema details in the structured data, the description manually enumerates return fields and provides examples. It covers the essential behavioral and semantic aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds concrete meaning: commit_id is a UUID, commit_hash is a 40-character git SHA. It also states the usage context for each parameter, significantly aiding schema understanding.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a single commit by either commit ID (UUID) or commit hash (git SHA). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_commits_by_branch.

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?

Explicitly instructs to provide only one of commit_id or commit_hash, not both, and explains when to use each. However, it does not mention scenarios where the tool should not be used or suggest alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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