git_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful `<revision>:<path>` addressing form, a genuinely behavioral detail, but says nothing about output shape (diff vs. blob vs. metadata) or how large/binary content is handled.

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 verb leads and the two scoping modes (whole commit vs. sub-path) follow immediately.

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?

With safety annotations present and no output schema, the remaining burden is explaining what comes back and how args combine. The description covers the two addressing modes but leaves 'repo_path' unexplained and gives no hint of the return format, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the `<revision>:<path>` syntax for 'revision', which the bare schema string type does not, but 'repo_path' is left completely undocumented in both places.

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') and resource ('contents of a commit, or of a file or directory'), making it clear this is an inspection tool. It separates itself implicitly from git_diff/git_log by scoping to a named revision, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like git_log or git_diff. An agent must infer from the resource scope alone that this is the tool for reading historical content rather than working-tree changes.

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