Get File Blame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it uses a 'given ref' and the line range condition, but no major new behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences cover the core functionality concisely. Could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention return format or content. It also omits prerequisites like repository access or permissions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, more context is needed.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only explains the line range parameters (must be provided together) and implies 'ref' is the git reference. Other parameters like file_path and project_id are not explained, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool retrieves git blame for a file at a given ref, with an optional line range condition. It uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'git blame', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_file_contents.

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 specifies that the line range is optional but must provide both start and end if used. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude certain scenarios.

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