github_get_commit

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

The description conveys a read-only 'Get' operation and clarifies the return scope ('file changes and stats'), which is useful given there are no annotations. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like large diffs, auth requirements, or response truncation despite carrying the full burden without 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose and the key output detail ('file changes and stats') without any filler. Every part contributes meaning.

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 is simple (3 required parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description adequately summarizes what the tool returns. It could mention the response format or note about large diffs, but for this low-complexity tool, the missing details are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (owner, repo, ref) including the ref formats. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific commit') and adds distinguishing detail ('including file changes and stats'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_commits (which lists) and compare_commits (which compares).

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 phrase 'specific commit' implies this tool is for retrieving one commit's details rather than listing or comparing commits, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer usage context from the name and wording.

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