git_diff

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'show changes', implying non-destructive read, but no explicit statement about safety, side effects, or output format. Does not disclose that it requires a git context or error 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. However, 'etc.' is vague and could be replaced with specific examples. Still, it is appropriately short and wastes no words.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter descriptions, the description provides minimal context. It omits return format, error handling, required environment, and parameter usage guidance. Inadequate for a tool with three parameters and no structured metadata.

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%; description adds no parameter details. Parameter names (staged, target, repoPath) imply meaning, but the description fails to explain them or their interactions (e.g., relationship between staged and target, what repoPath defaults to). No compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Show changes between commits, working tree, etc.' Differentiates from git_log (log of commits) and git_branches (list branches) by focusing on diff output. However, 'etc.' adds vagueness, not fully specifying all supported diff scenarios.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like git_log, git_branches, or file operation tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be in a git repository) or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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