git_show

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses execution timing behavior (expected_runtime, timeout, on_timeout options), but fails to mention that the tool runs 'git show' on a ref/path, what the output is, or whether it has side effects. Core behavior is missing.

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 concise (one sentence) but poorly structured: it front-loads irrelevant timing details before the purpose. It should first state the function, then add timing specifics.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description should cover return values and parameter semantics. It only addresses execution timing, leaving the tool's actual operation, return format, and potential errors undocumented.

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 compensate. It does not explain any parameter semantics, especially the key 'ref' and 'path' parameters critical for git_show. It only mentions timing-related parameters, which are already clear from the schema names.

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 does not state what the tool does. It only mentions that execution timing is supported, but the core action of 'git show' (displaying git object details) is never described. The title is null, and the name alone is insufficient. This is a tautology of the name without functional explanation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling git tools like git_log, git_diff, or git_status. The description focuses on execution timing parameters, implying it is for long-running commands, but does not specify the actual use case for git_show.

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