get_commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool includes file changes, implying a read-only retrieval. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it returns paginated results, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 immediately conveys the tool's core function. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words, maximizing clarity in minimal space.

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 retriever with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks details on return format, limits, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_commit_diff'. Some additional context would improve completeness.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond aligning with the includeChanges parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no further value.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed information about a specific commit'), and scope ('including changes'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_commit_diff' (which focuses on diff) and 'list_commits' (which lists multiple).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts (e.g., 'Use this for full commit details; for diff only, use get_commit_diff'). This lack of guidance leaves the agent to infer usage without support.

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