git_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (stat + patch), which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits diff size/truncation behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the essential purpose and output format are stated immediately.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should say more about return content, large-diff handling, and the repo_path/commit parameters. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a git tool that can produce very large outputs.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does add that only a single commit is diffed (no ranges), but says nothing about the repo_path parameter or commit defaulting to HEAD. With 2 mostly self-evident parameters, this is partially compensating.

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?

"Show the stat-and-patch diff for a single Git commit" names a specific verb (show) and resource (diff of one commit) and the qualifier "single" distinguishes it from range- or repo-level tools like recent_changes or analyze_change. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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 phrase "as evidence for a specific change" implies the investigatory use case but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not conditions or named alternatives. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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