git_show

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

The description claims 'stat defaults to True' while the input schema states stat has a default of false. This is a direct contradiction with the structured schema and misrepresents the tool's actual default behavior. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered, but the inaccurate statement about stat undermines behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with distinct sections: purpose, use case, returns, and exclusions. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Minor redundancy exists ('inspect exactly what a specific commit changed' appears twice), but overall every sentence contributes value. Score 4, not 5, due to the redundancy and the contradictory stat default.

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 covers purpose, usage, return format, and exclusions, and names sibling alternatives. However, the contradiction about stat's default (saying True vs schema's false) creates incomplete and misleading context. With no output schema, the description must be accurate, and this error prevents it from being fully 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description introduces a factual error: 'stat defaults to True' contradicts the schema's default of false. While it adds useful context for the object parameter (defaults to HEAD, omit to see latest change), the incorrect stat default is misleading and reduces the reliability of parameter understanding.

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's verb ('Render a commit's metadata and patch') and resource (specific commit, defaulting to HEAD). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does NOT list history (use git_log) and does NOT compare working tree changes (use git_diff). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to inspect exactly what a specific commit changed' and 'Best for: inspecting what a specific commit changed.' It also provides explicit when-not-to-use with alternatives: 'Does NOT list history — use git_log to find commits; does NOT compare working tree changes — use git_diff for that.' This is exactly what the dimension asks for.

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