ck_git_diff

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

No annotations provided, but description declares 'Read-only — no commits are created' and mentions output. Does not describe every behavioral aspect (e.g., side effects) but is clear enough.

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?

Three sentences, each essential: purpose, read-only+parameter hint, usage guidance. No fluff.

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 4 params and no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, read-only, and output. Complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 75% (3/4 params have descriptions). Description adds that base_ref and head_ref are git refs (branch, commit, tag) and that omitting both diffs staged changes. This adds value beyond schema.

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 verb 'Generate', resource 'git diff', and action 'CK validation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming when to use each.

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 says 'Use ck_git_diff to review changes before committing or submitting a review' and provides alternatives: ck_git_status for summary, ck_git_commit to commit. Also explains how to diff staged changes.

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