git_show_commit

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the qualifier 'optionally its patch,' which hints at configurable output, but it does not provide deeper behavioral context such as error conditions, performance implications, or default execution specifics. Thus it offers marginal value beyond annotations.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy, jargon, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 output schema exists and covers return values, and annotations cover safety. For a relatively simple read tool, the description is largely sufficient, but it omits any guidance on parameter defaults or usage alternatives. This is a minor gap, so it scores slightly above the minimum viable.

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?

The schema covers repositoryId with a helpful description, but revision and includePatch have no descriptions. The description's 'optionally its patch' partially clarifies includePatch, but revision is left entirely unexplained. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('commit metadata, changed files, and optionally its patch'), which fully distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like git_log or git_diff that focus on lists or diffs. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need detailed information about a single commit) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so the guidance is only implicit.

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