git_show_commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the patch is optional and that changed files are shown, which is useful behavioral nuance beyond the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: 'Show commit metadata, changed files, and optionally its patch' efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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?

With 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention that 'path' restricts the output to a specific file, nor how 'revision' selects the commit (defaulting to HEAD). These are critical usage details that are absent, making the tool under-specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions). The description only hints at includePatch via 'optionally its patch' but adds no meaning for path, revision, or includePatch beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, especially path and revision which are central to git_show.

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 ('Show') and resource ('commit'), and clearly lists the output components: metadata, changed files, and optional patch. This distinguishes it from siblings like git_log (list commits) and git_diff (show differences) by indicating a single-commit focus.

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 usage for inspecting a single commit, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., git_log for history, git_diff for comparing branches). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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