git_diff

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions the default behavior (diff against HEAD) but lacks details on output format, side effects, or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate for a read-only 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?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action and default behavior.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It tells the purpose and default. However, it could mention that output is a string diff.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds 'Default: HEAD' which is already in the schema's parameter description. No additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 name 'git_diff' and description 'Get diff of changes' clearly indicate the tool's function. The default against HEAD is stated, distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_status or git_log.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies viewing changes, it does not specify exclusions or comparisons with siblings like fs_read or other git tools.

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