Git show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' note is redundant. The description adds the output format ('stat (oneline)'), which gives some context about behavior, but it does not disclose anything else like pagination, limits, or error handling. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, the description adds limited extra value.

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?

The description is concise, containing only two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity sacrifices essential information about parameters and usage, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

For a tool with three parameters (one required) and zero schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of any parameter, does not describe the return value beyond 'stat (oneline)', and lacks any usage context. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional information.

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%, meaning the parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of 'rev', 'path', and 'max_chars'. This is a critical gap because 'path' is required and its purpose is unclear.

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 action: 'Show a commit with stat (oneline).' It names the resource (commit) and the output format (stat, oneline), which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_log or git_diff, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many git-related sibling tools, the agent receives no hint about when git_show is the appropriate choice over git_log or git_diff. This leaves the selection ambiguous.

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