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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and that changes are included, but does not describe return format, pagination, error conditions, or any read-only guarantees. This is a minimal disclosure for an information retrieval tool.

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 primary action and key detail. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, but is a simple read operation with fully documented parameters. The description is adequate but sparse; it does not explain what 'detailed information' includes or what 'changes' refers to, leaving some ambiguity for a new agent.

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%, so the parameter names and descriptions already fully document each field. The description's mention of 'including changes' does not add new meaning beyond the existing includeChanges parameter description. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 detailed information about a specific commit including changes' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific commit'), clearly distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like list_commits. It also hints at a key feature (including changes) that differentiates it from get_commit_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit_diff or list_commits. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without exclusions or alternatives.

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