code.git_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Return git diff.' It does not explain whether it includes unstaged changes, untracked files, or the exact semantics of the staged parameter, nor does it clarify side effects or output behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful detail that could have been included without much length.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot reliably determine what the staged flag does, whether the diff is limited to the working tree, or what the returned output looks like.

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 schema has one optional boolean parameter ('staged') with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The name 'staged' hints at semantics, but the description adds no meaning about what true or false produces.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('git diff') with a specific scope ('workspaceRoot'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling code tools.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like code.apply_patch or code.commit_changes. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and description; no prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided.

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