git_diff

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: defaulting to unstaged changes, the staged flag, and file path scoping, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds meaningful information: purpose, default mode, and optional scoping.

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?

For a simple read-only git command, the description is complete. Both parameters are covered, no output schema is needed, and annotations cover the safety profile. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra clarity by explaining the default for staged (false) and the meaning of path scoping, which enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 shows git diff output for a repository, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from generic system tools but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling git_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the default behavior (unstaged changes) and how to switch to staged changes, plus path scoping. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over git_status or other alternatives, only implying usage context.

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