get_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does convey that the tool returns commit details (author, message, date, files), which is helpful, and the verb 'get' implies a read operation, so there is no suggestion of destructive side effects. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits. Given the absence of annotations, the description adds some useful behavior but is not fully transparent, so a middle score is warranted.

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, compact sentence that is appropriately front-loaded. It states the core purpose and the primary output fields with no redundant phrasing, fully earning its place.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a clear output-feature description, the tool is callable correctly. However, with no output_schema and no mention of error handling or result shape nuances, the description is only minimally complete for context. The presence of multiple similar siblings also argues for a note about when to pick this one, which is missing. Therefore a 3 is appropriate.

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%, meaning all three parameters (commit_id, repo_slug, workspace) are already explained in the schema, including the optionality of workspace when the environment variable is set. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline score of 3 rather than exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource ('a specific commit') with a detail list (author, message, date, files changed). This is sufficiently concrete and distinguishable from list_commits (listing) and get_commit_diff (comparing diffs), even though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives. A score of 4 reflects that the purpose is clear but not perfectly differentiated from its sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_commits, get_commit_diff, or any other alternative. It states only what the tool does with no mention of context or exclusions. An agent has to infer from the description when this tool is the right choice among the eleven siblings.

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