Get Commit Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it retrieves a snapshot at a commit, without explaining what the snapshot contains (e.g., file tree, file contents, archive format) or whether it affects the working directory. This is minimal added behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the verb and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what a 'snapshot' returns (e.g., a file tree, a zip archive, a list of changed files), but it does not. Combined with the lack of usage guidance, the description leaves important context underspecified for a tool with no structured return type.

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 100%, with both agent_id and commit_sha described. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so it neither helps nor hurts; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot of the repo state at a specific commit'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_commits, get_status, or get_file_content. It conveys a point-in-time read of the full repository state, which is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_git_get_status or lyzr_git_get_file_content. No exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites are mentioned; the use case is only implied by the phrase 'at a specific commit'.

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