get_commit_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the default result is raw unified diff text and that detail:"files" omits diff bodies. It does not mention truncation, size limits, or error behavior for missing commits.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It states the main output and the key mode switch 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?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, so the description should carry more burden. It covers the core return format and the files-vs-diff distinction, but leaves filtering options, context-line behavior, and file-list output structure unaddressed.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description usefully clarifies the detail enum and default diff behavior, but it does not explain file_path, context_lines, include_patterns, or exclude_patterns beyond what the schema names provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get a commit diff. It clearly distinguishes the two output modes, raw diff vs. changed-file list, but does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as get_pull_request_diff or list_pr_commits.

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?

It implies when to use detail:"files" by saying it returns just the changed-file list with no diff bodies. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_pull_request_diff, list_pr_commits, or list_branch_commits.

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