Show Git diff

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds that the command is 'fixed' (non-customizable) and requires authorization, which is useful context. However, it does not clarify the effect of the 'staged' parameter or output behavior, so it adds limited value beyond 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?

A single sentence with no redundancy. The key constraint 'fixed, read-only' is front-loaded, and 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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits how the 'staged' parameter changes behavior (diff against index vs working tree) and does not describe the output format. Given no output schema, this is a notable gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage, the description should explain parameters, but it only mentions 'Git diff command' without clarifying 'projectId' or 'staged'. The 'staged' boolean is self-evident from Git knowledge, but the description adds no explicit meaning, leaving a gap.

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 action (run) and resource (Git diff command), and specifies 'fixed, read-only' and 'authorized project'. It is distinct from siblings like git_status by focusing on diff, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Mentions 'authorized project' as a contextual requirement, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus git_status or other read-only tools. No exclusions or alternatives are listed, leaving usage to inference.

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