Get Commit Diff

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating 'Returns the unified diff showing all changes introduced by the commit' and mentioning optional path restriction, but does not elaborate on output size, performance, or edge cases like extremely large diffs.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, all front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 the existence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the primary functionality and optional path restriction. Could be slightly enhanced with hints about pagination or large diffs, but not necessary for most use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description only highlights the 'path' parameter, which is already described in the schema. No additional semantics are provided for 'whitespace', 'context_lines', 'response_format', or other parameters.

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 action ('Get the diff') and resource ('specific commit'), and specifies the output format ('unified diff'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bitbucket_get_pull_request_diff by targeting commits rather than pull requests.

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 tool versus alternatives such as bitbucket_get_commit or bitbucket_get_pull_request_diff. The description does not provide context for selection criteria or when to avoid using this tool.

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