Get git diff

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

The description adds the 'allowed root' constraint, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also confirms the read-only behavior consistent with readOnlyHint, and does not contradict any 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core function ('Run a read-only git diff') and includes the key scope constraint without unnecessary detail. Every word earns 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the operation and scope, and the git diff output format is implied by the tool name, so no further explanation is needed.

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% with both parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the parameter meaning.

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 runs a git diff, specifies that it is read-only, and scopes it to a project directory within an allowed root. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_git_status, which show status rather than diffs.

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 provides clear context that this is for viewing diffs, and the read-only nature implies safe inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_git_status or mention exclusions, so it stops short of the strongest guidance.

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