git-mcp-server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context about performance characteristics with large files and output volume management via line ranges, which is not inferable from the annotation alone. No contradictions with structured data.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads core functionality; second provides essential optimization guidance. Appropriate density for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema (covering return values) and readOnlyHint annotation (covering safety), plus the straightforward nature of git blame, the description successfully covers the essential behavioral concerns (large file handling) without redundancy.

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%, establishing baseline context for all 5 parameters. Description adds semantic value by explaining the purpose of startLine/endLine (limiting output for large files), which goes beyond the schema's mere 'Start line number' definition.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Show') + resource ('line-by-line authorship information') + scope ('for a file'). Distinct from siblings like git_log (history) or git_diff (changes) by emphasizing per-line authorship tracking.

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?

Provides specific optimization guidance ('For large files, use startLine/endLine to limit output') indicating when to use line range parameters. Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., when to use git_log instead), but offers concrete usage context.

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