bb_get_commit_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: a read-only operation returning the raw diff relative to the commit's parent. However, it does not mention behavior for merge commits, root commits, response format, or error conditions.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with a parenthetical clarifying the diff scope. No filler or redundant content.

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?

exit

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 documented. The description adds no parameter-level information for projectKey or repoSlug, and while their names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('raw diff introduced by a single commit'), and clarifies the semantics with 'changes the commit makes relative to its parent'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling diff tools like bb_get_diff or bb_get_pull_request_diff.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need the diff from a specific commit, not a pull request or a summary. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use them, but the 'single commit' framing is enough to guide selection.

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