emacs_git_diff

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but there is no statement about output format, behavior when no changes exist, or relationship of the commit parameter. It adds only minimal behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose with no filler. All content earns its place.

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 query tool with full schema coverage and a required enum, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is no indication of what the diff output looks like, but no output schema exists and the operation is low-risk.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither improves nor harms the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('diff') with the three supported change categories. This cleanly distinguishes from git_status and diff_summary siblings by naming the exact diff scope.

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 'staged, unstaged, or committed' phrase gives the intended context, but the description never names sibling tools like emacs_diff_summary or emacs_ediff_* or states when not to use it. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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