git_search

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description reinforces this by framing everything as 'inspect' of git history (logs, diffs, blame). It adds the mode taxonomy but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or why one mode is preferable. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded ahead of the mode list. No wasted words, though the mode enumeration could be integrated more cohesively with the semantic description.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only profile. However, for a 6-parameter, 4-mode tool, the description never clarifies which parameters apply to which mode (e.g., line_start/line_end for blame, query for commits), leaving meaningful gaps.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the valid mode values (which are not formal enums), but leaves query, limit, rel_path, line_start, and line_end unexplained, even though line_start/line_end and rel_path clearly scope the blame/diff modes. Partial compensation only.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with concrete resources ('git commit logs, recent changes, commit diffs, line blame') and enumerates the four modes. The git-history domain inherently separates it from sibling text-search tools like grep_search or search. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Listing the modes ('commits', 'recent_changes', 'diff', 'blame') implies the tool's capabilities, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing among the modes, and no routing to alternatives like grep_search or search for working-tree text. Usage is left to inference.

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