get_commit_diff

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

With no annotations, the description must rely on the verb 'Get' to convey a read-only operation. It does not disclose additional behavioral details such as output format, potential size limits, or authentication requirements, but it also does not mislead. It meets the minimum for a simple read 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, front-loaded sentence that is perfectly sized. It states the essential purpose without any filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not describe the return format (since no output schema exists) or provide explicit usage guidance, but it captures the tool's core function completely enough for a straightforward operation.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all parameters (path, project, commitId, repository). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('diff/changes for a file in a commit'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_commit (commit details) and compare_branches (branch-to-branch diffs), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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: it is for retrieving a file-level diff within a given commit. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, the wording implies when to use it, e.g., 'for a file' distinguishes it from whole-commit or branch diff tools.

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