git_diff_unstaged

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the scoping qualifier ('working directory, not staged'); it says nothing about output format, whether context_lines truncates output, or behavior on a clean tree. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler; the defining scope constraint appears immediately. It could have used a few more words productively (alternatives, parameters) but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, non-destructive diff tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the purpose statement is sufficient to call it correctly. However, the entirely undocumented parameters (repo_path required, context_lines default) leave a real gap that a slightly longer description could have closed.

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% — neither repo_path nor context_lines has any documentation in the schema — and the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not explain that repo_path is the repository to inspect or what context_lines controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though both parameters are conceptually self-explanatory to a git-literate agent.

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 ('Shows') plus a precise resource scope ('changes in the working directory that are not yet staged'), which implicitly separates it from git_diff_staged and git_diff. It is clear, but it never names the sibling it is contrasted with, so differentiation requires the agent to reason about the git workflow rather than being told.

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 scope phrase 'not yet staged' implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of git_diff_staged or git_diff as alternatives, and no prerequisite (e.g. valid repo_path). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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