git_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the read-only nature and the two output modes (full diff vs. stat summary), which is real value. However it says nothing about behavior on a bad rev, output size for large commits, or how output differs when path is set, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the mode hint. Nothing redundant is present.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the read-only plus stat_only notes cover the essentials. Still, a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage leaves rev, path, and repo semantics unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 4 parameters, and the description only explains stat_only; 'commit' weakly implies rev but path and repo are never mentioned. A path-scoped show behaves very differently from a full show, and that distinction is absent from both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Show a commit's message and diff' tells the agent exactly what is returned, and '(read-only)' flags the operation class. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like git_diff or git_log, leaving the agent to infer that git_show is per-commit inspection rather than range comparison or history listing.

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: 'stat_only=true gives only the file summary' hints at a lightweight inspection mode, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over git_diff or git_log. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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