git_diff

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is higher. The description adds meaningful behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'bounded' implies pagination, 'filtered' implies scoping, and 'no-color' discloses output formatting. These traits are not present in the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource while every adjective ('bounded', 'filtered', 'no-color', 'bound workspace') earns its place by conveying a distinct constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With a rich output schema, safety annotations, and an input schema containing enums and bounds, the description does not need to explain return values or all parameter validation. It is complete enough for a read-only paginated diff tool, though it could add an explicit pointer about when to use git_status instead.

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 for documenting the four parameters. It only hints at 'bounded' (cursor/maxBytes) and 'filtered' (path) without naming or explaining any parameter directly, and it does not clarify the mode enum or cursor format. The schema alone carries most of the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') naming the resource ('Git diff page') with clear qualifiers: bounded, filtered, no-color, bound workspace. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_status (which reports state, not diffs) and read_file_range (which reads raw 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?

The description conveys clear context for invoking a diff operation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer git_diff over siblings like git_status or what conditions select this tool. Usage guidance is implied by the diff-specific resource rather than explicitly articulated.

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