Git 差异

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

The readOnlyHint already signals no mutation, and the description adds that it covers work tree/staged areas and supports path restriction. However, it does not disclose behavior around default staged=false, whether stat output is returned, or the format of the diff, beyond what the annotation already implies.

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 or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the main optional capability.

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?

Important context is missing: no output schema exists, no parameter descriptions exist, and the description does not explain return format, stat behavior, cwd semantics, or default behavior. For a tool with four parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation.

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 compensate. It explains path ('可限制路径') and partially staged ('工作树或暂存区'), but leaves cwd and stat completely undocumented, and does not clarify the meaning or interaction of staged with the default work-tree diff.

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 it returns work-tree or staged-area differences and can restrict by path, which is specific and actionable. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the distinction from git_status/git_log/git_show is reasonably inferable from '差异'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus git_status, git_log, git_show, or exec_command. The description implies it is for diff viewing, but it does not state alternatives, exclusions, or the conditions that would make another tool more appropriate.

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