Analyze code changes by calculating file modifications and line additions/removals between commits, specific files, or staged content.
Get diff statistics (files changed, lines added/removed)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| staged | No | Show stats for staged changes | |
| file | No | Specific file stats | |
| commit1 | No | First commit for comparison | |
| commit2 | No | Second commit for comparison | |
| cwd | No | Working directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. Only states it gets diff statistics; no mention of side effects, required infrastructure (git repo), or behavior with missing parameters.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no extraneous words. Efficient and to the point.
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 5 optional parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description is too brief. Default behavior when no parameters are provided is unclear. Return format not described.
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 baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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?
Clearly states 'Get diff statistics' with parenthetical specifying 'files changed, lines added/removed'. Verb+resource is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like git_diff or enhanced_git_diff.
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 versus siblings like git_diff or compare_commits. No mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.