查看 Git 对象

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present and the description's "view" wording is consistent with it. The description adds the path-restriction behavior, but does not disclose default revision behavior (HEAD) or the nature of the returned output. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the optional path restriction, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 inspection tool with three optional parameters, the description gives the essential idea. However, it omits cwd semantics and revision format details, and there is no output schema to clarify return values. Still, an agent could likely invoke it correctly using defaults and git conventions.

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 maps "specified commit or object" to revision and "limit file path" to path, but it does not explain cwd, revision formats (branch, SHA, ref), or defaults. This is only partial parameter guidance.

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 action (view) and resource (a specified commit or object), and mentions the optional path restriction. It is distinguishable from git_status (repo state) and file-editing tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with git_log or git_diff.

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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like git_log or git_diff, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The path restriction is implied as a usage option, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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