Get Git diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds the behavioral detail that the diff is current and optionally scoped, but does not disclose other traits like output format or performance.

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 with no extraneous words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the optional path is in the second. Highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the basic functionality but omits details like output type (e.g., text diff) or how the tool interacts with other git tools. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not rich.

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?

With low schema coverage (33%), the description compensates by explaining the path parameter ('project-relative path') and alluding to the staged parameter ('unstaged or staged'). The project param is documented in the schema.

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 the tool reviews unstaged or staged code changes, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like git_status (which shows status, not diff), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides some usage guidance by mentioning optional path limiting, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions and does not reference alternatives among siblings.

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