git.diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only summarizes schema parameters (staged, paths) and does not disclose output format, truncation behavior (max_bytes), or behavior when there are no changes. The ambiguous 'staged or unstaged' could mislead about whether both are shown simultaneously.

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, terse sentence that immediately conveys the core function with no fluff. All words are necessary and the description is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return format and edge cases. It does not mention max_bytes truncation, default output style, or what happens when there are no changes. While the schema covers parameter definitions, the description leaves behavioral aspects incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond naming 'optional path filtering,' which duplicates the paths parameter description. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('diff output'), includes scope ('staged or unstaged') and optional path filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like git.status (which shows status) and repo.apply_patch (which applies changes).

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?

The description provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives, only an implied context of needing diff output. It gives a minor usage hint via 'optional path filtering' but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over git.status or repo.read_file.

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