veto_git_blame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is instant and uses local git history (zero network), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as that it is read-only, requires a git repository, or what happens if the path is invalid. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and includes a key performance attribute (instant, zero network). Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return content (total commits, contributor list, last-modified metadata) and the local nature. However, it could be slightly more detailed about potential failure modes or required environment (e.g., must be within a git repo).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., absolute paths, precedence rule). It does not compensate with additional context about parameter formats or constraints.

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 it returns ownership and contribution history with specific details (total commits, contributor list, last-modified metadata), using a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'ownership and contribution history'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on git blame for files/directories, which no other sibling tool explicitly does.

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 minimal guidance on when to use the tool, only mentioning it uses local git history (instant, zero network). It does not specify when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repository), or alternatives. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool over others.

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