github_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. It discloses that the tool returns 'details and diff stats', which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or how errors are handled. The read-only nature is implied but not fully contextualized.

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, direct sentence of 10 words. It front-loads the action ('Get') and resource ('details and diff stats for a single commit'), with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter GET tool, the description sufficiently communicates the core function. However, it leaves minor gaps: it doesn't elaborate on what 'diff stats' includes (e.g., additions, deletions, files changed) or provide guidance relative to github_list_commits. Given the low complexity and no output schema, the description is almost complete.

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%: each parameter (owner, repo, sha) has a clear short description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details and diff stats for a single commit' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details and diff stats') and explicitly scopes to a single commit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_commits, which lists commits, and github_get_repository, which targets a repository.

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 implies usage when retrieving details for one commit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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