arvan_git_diff

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is read-only. The description adds that it shows diff output and that the behavior changes based on the 'staged' parameter. No contradictions, but additional details about output format or limitations would improve transparency.

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 is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but lacks details about the output format (e.g., plain text diff) and does not mention that the directory parameter is required (though implied). No output schema exists, so the description should provide more context on return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the 'staged' parameter (unstaged vs staged). However, it does not describe the 'directory' parameter, which is required but implicitly clear it's the repository path. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it shows the diff of unstaged or staged changes, with the 'staged' parameter differentiating the two. It distinguishes itself from sibling git tools like arvan_git_status and arvan_git_log by specifying a distinct action (diff).

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 when to use the tool: to view unstaged changes, or staged changes when the 'staged' parameter is set. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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