Git diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds behavioral context by specifying that uncommitted changes are shown by default and staged changes require staged=true, which complements the schema default. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and uses a parenthetical to cover the alternative mode. There is no redundancy, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 (2 simple parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the readOnly annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are the lack of usage differentiation and minimal path explanation, but for a simple diff tool this is relatively 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 compensate. It explicitly explains the staged parameter's effect, but the path parameter is left unexplained beyond implying it refers to a repository. The format, scope, and exact meaning of path are left to inference, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool shows uncommitted changes, with an optional staged mode via the staged parameter. The verb 'Show' and resource 'uncommitted changes' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like git_show (specific commits), git_status (status summary), and git_log (history).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative git tools. It does not mention git_show, git_status, git_log, or any conditions for choosing this one. The usage context is implied by the description but never made explicit.

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