Code MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions format options but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., formatted text output), whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key differentiator (format options) without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error handling, or when to use it versus sibling tools. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description mentions 'multiple format options' which aligns with the 'format' parameter's enum values, but adds little beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema descriptions comprehensively document all 9 parameters, so the description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show git diff with multiple format options'. It specifies the verb ('Show'), resource ('git diff'), and key capability ('multiple format options'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff' or 'compare_commits', which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'git_diff', 'compare_commits', 'compare_files', and 'get_diff_stats' available, there's no indication of when this enhanced version is preferable or what distinguishes it from basic diff tools.

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