git_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning that it is a read-only operation (e.g., no side effects) or what the output contains (e.g., full diff).

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning its place with maximum efficiency.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description lacks details on expected output (e.g., does it return a diff or just metadata?) and no output schema is provided. The tool's behavior is underspecified for an agent to fully understand its result.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 'Shows the contents of a commit' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like git_log (history) and git_diff (differences). However, 'contents' is somewhat vague and could be clarified (e.g., diff and metadata).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_log or git_diff. The description lacks context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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