ssh_git_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains parameters like 'ref' and 'staged' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, error behavior, or output format. The diff nature implies read-only, but it's not explicit.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear 'Args:' section. Each parameter is explained in one line without unnecessary detail, earning its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameters well but omits return value description, error handling, and prerequisites. While adequate for basic use, it leaves gaps for an AI agent regarding expected output and failure modes.

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 0%, so the description must and does explain each parameter in detail: cwd (defaults to host's default_cwd), ref (empty for working tree diff), path (limit to file/directory), staged (--cached), host (SSH host alias). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's name/type.

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's purpose: 'Show git diff on the remote server.' It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('git diff'), differentiating it from sibling tools like ssh_git_log (show log) and ssh_git_status (show status).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but does not provide context like use cases or exclusions (e.g., does not mention that ssh_git_log should be used for commit history).

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