git_blame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: the file must be committed and must be UTF-8, implying behavior on binary/non-UTF-8 files or uncommitted changes. It does not describe output shape or how uncommitted lines are reported.

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 tight sentence with zero filler; the key constraints (committed, UTF-8, inclusive range) are front-loaded where an agent will read them.

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?

Output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety needn't be explained. Still, for a tool with revision-based blame semantics, the absence of any note on the revision parameter or on path scoping leaves the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: 'inclusive line range' clarifies whether start_line/end_line bounds are inclusive, which the schema leaves ambiguous. It says nothing about the revision parameter (which changes blame semantics substantially) or about path resolution, leaving a significant gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific verb ('attribute') and target ('a committed UTF-8 file or inclusive line range') mapped to commits, which is unambiguous git blame semantics and distinguishable from git_log/git_show/git_diff. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the operation itself — an agent can infer to use it when it needs line-level authorship. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer git_log, git_show, or git_diff instead, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a committed revision).

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