get_blame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the return shape (ranges of lines with commit, author, and PR metadata) and that start_line/end_line slice the result. It says nothing about auth requirements, behavior on large or binary files, or limits, which matters for a tool with no annotations.

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 tight sentences: purpose, use case, return shape plus slicing hint, all front-loaded with zero filler. Each sentence carries distinct information, and the output-shape sentence is especially valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

For a read-only blame tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers purpose, trigger, and return structure, which is nearly enough to call it correctly. It omits edge-case behavior (large files, renames/binary content) and any auth or limit context.

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 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description only reinforces the start_line/end_line slicing and implies ref semantics via 'at a commit or ref,' adding little beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns line-by-line git blame annotations for a file at a commit or ref,' which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_path_history or get_diff. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource type alone.

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?

'Use to identify who changed specific lines, when, in which commit, and via which PR' gives a concrete task-level trigger. No exclusions or named alternatives are offered, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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