Get Vault Commit Detail

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those: the exact JSON return structure, the default response format, and the error handling when a SHA is not found. This goes beyond simple scoping and genuinely helps an agent anticipate tool 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff. It is longer than a single sentence, but the length is justified by the need to document output format and error behavior given the absence of an output schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully documents the return format (both markdown and JSON structures), error handling, and usage examples. It also clarifies the scope ('in canonical-vault') and sources the sha from a sibling tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly, and nothing is left to inference.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra meaning by providing a concrete example of how to obtain a sha (from vault_get_file_history) and by illustrating the response_format usage. While not essential, this context adds value beyond the schema's bare parameter definitions.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource statement: 'Get full detail for a single commit in canonical-vault: message, author, stats, and the list of files it changed (with per-file diff stats).' This precisely defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like vault_get_file_history (which returns commit lists) and vault_get_file (which retrieves file content).

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: a 'Use when' example ('What exactly changed in commit a1b2c3d?') and a 'Don't use when' case that names the alternative tool (vault_get_file_history). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over its siblings.

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