Lookup Commit

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

Annotations already signal destructive capability (destructiveHint=true). The description adds specificity about a poisoning gate that may quarantine an unsafe linked session summary, and clarifies the response separates git vs memory-derived data. This provides valuable context beyond the annotations, though the exact conditions of quarantine are not detailed.

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 three sentences, each covering distinct information: core purpose, a mutation caveat, and response structure. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers prerequisites (SHA), the potential side-effect (quarantine), and the response separation. It's adequate, though 'poisoning gate' could use unpacking for full clarity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only restating that lookup is by full or short SHA, which the schema already states. No additional parameter-specific semantics are introduced.

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 identifies the tool as a lookup operation for git commit metadata and linked memory sessions, keyed by SHA. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by highlighting the separation of git metadata from memory-derived summaries, preventing inference of missing links.

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?

It implies the primary use case: when you have a full or short SHA and need commit metadata plus linked memory sessions. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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