emacs_git_blame

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool shows git blame and omits important behavioral traits such as requiring a Git repository, needing committed history, or how line ranges affect results. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the action verb and resource. There is no wasted wording, though it may be terse to the point of being under-specified for a tool with optional range parameters.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description leaves out return format, line-range semantics, and repository preconditions. An agent would have to infer whether the tool works on uncommitted files or what the output looks like, making it incomplete for confident 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters with basic meanings, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics about how start_line and end_line interact, whether they are inclusive, or how the file path should be specified.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'git blame for a file', making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like emacs_git_diff or emacs_git_log beyond the blame name itself.

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 provided about when to use git blame versus alternatives such as git_log, git_diff, or git_status. There are no listed use cases, prerequisites, or tips that would help an agent select this tool over its siblings.

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