bb_get_commit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses accepted commit identifier forms (full SHA, short SHA, HEAD) and mention of relevant PRs is helpful. However, it does not cover error behavior, authentication needs, or read-only guarantees, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and return fields. It is efficient, but the second sentence introduces a misleading parameter name ('slug' instead of 'commitId'), slightly reducing clarity.

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 description explains the return fields and accepted commit identifier forms, but with no annotations and no output schema it is not fully complete. It omits any guidance about the meaning of projectKey/repoSlug and does not address failure cases or sibling-tool differentiation.

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 only 33% (only commitId is described). The description adds little for commitId because the schema already says 'Commit SHA (full or short) or HEAD', and it confusingly refers to 'slug' rather than the actual parameter name commitId. projectKey and repoSlug remain semantically undocumented.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details for a single commit') and enumerates exact return fields: message, author, date, parents, and relevant PRs. This clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like bb_list_commits.

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 phrase 'for a single commit' establishes clear usage context and implies this is not for listing commits or retrieving diffs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the single-commit scope is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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