Get Git diff

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful context: 'bounded' suggests a limited scope, and 'and its stat' informs the user that both diff and stat are returned. No contradiction with annotations observed.

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 zero filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. No wasted words.

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, the existing output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it does not mention that `project` is required or that `path` filters to a specific file, though these are evident from the schema. Minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'workspace or staged' which partially explains the `scope` parameter, but gives no detail on `path` or `project` beyond what the schema already shows. The compensation is incomplete.

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 specific verb ('return'), a clear resource ('diff'), and the scope ('workspace or staged'), which distinguishes it from siblings like git_status (status) and git_commit (committing). The purpose is 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 implies when to use it (when you need a diff) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like git_status. It lacks exclusions or naming of sibling tools for comparison.

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